1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, beside being an intriguing character, was the Propaganda Minister
for Hitler's Third Reich. He was recognized as a master of propaganda as his work was
studied after WWII. Goebbels did not survive to enjoy the recognition; he and his wife
committed suicide on 1 May 1945, a week before the final collapse of the Third Reich.
After the war, US personnel discovered a very large diary dictated by Goebbels. In it
are his principles of propaganda. Leonard Doob's 1950 article details them from a
translation of the diary by Louis Lochner (1948).
Hitler's Basic Principles
These principles are abstracted from Jowett & O'Donnell.
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
Give only one side of the argument.
Continuously criticize your opponents.
Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda
When reading these propaganda principles, keep in mind that they were applied in wartime
(WWII) and involve issues that don't arise otherwise. It's a long list, but Goebbels was
dealing with the complexity of an all-out war. While reading them you may realize that some
of the principles are generally applicable and not limited to wartime. Some might be quite
familiar today. It is interesting to note that Goebbels' principles derive from Hitler's
own ideas of propaganda.
Propagandists must have access to intelligence concerning events and public
opinion.
Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
It must issue all the propaganda directives.
It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain
their morale.
It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences.
The Propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that
action.
Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and actions.
By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the
enemy with useful intelligence.
By openly disseminating propaganda whose contents or tone causes the enemy to
draw the desired conclusions.
By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself.
By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would
discredit that activity.
Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda
campaign.
To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be
transmitted through an attention-getting medium.
Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or
false.
The purpose, content, and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and
effects of an expose'; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether
enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.
Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine
whether propaganda materials should be censored.
Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps
diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.
Black rather than white propaganda must be employed when the latter is less
credible or produces undesirable effects.
Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
Propaganda must be carefully timed.
The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment.
A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing
effectiveness.
Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
They must evoke responses which the audience previously possesses.
They must be capable of being easily learned.
They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations.
They must be boomerang-proof.
Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be
blasted by future events.
Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat.
Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than that concerning the consequences
of defeat) which is too high and cannot be reduced by people themselves.
Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated.
Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective.
Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the
targets for hatred.
Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must
offer some form of action or diversion, or both.
These would be principles guiding the conduct of propaganda operations.
References
Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda, Leonard W. Doob, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 1950 pp. 419-442
US Troops Die for World Domination, Not Freedom May 31, 2021 Save
On Memorial Day, Caitlin Johnstone says it's important to block the propaganda that helps
feed a steady supply of teenagers into the imperial war machine.
Airman placing U.S. flags at military graves, May 27. (Arlington National Cemetery,
Flickr)
V ice President Kamala Harris spent
the weekend under fire from Republicans, which of course means that Kamala Harris spent the
weekend being criticized for the most silly, vapid reason you could possibly criticize Kamala
Harris for.
Apparently the likely future president tweeted "Enjoy the long weekend,"
a reference to the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, instead of gushing about fallen troops and
sacrifice.
That's it, that's the whole entire story. That silly, irrelevant offense by one of the
sleaziest
people in the single most corrupt and murderous government on earth is the whole entire
basis for histrionic headlines from conservative media outlets like this :
Harris, the born politician, was quick to course correct.
"Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our
freedoms and our country," the veep tweeted . "As we prepare to honor
them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice."
Which is of course complete bullshit. It has been generations since any member of the U.S.
military could be said to have served or sacrificed defending America or its freedoms, and that
has been the case throughout almost the entirety of its history. If you are reading this it is
statistically unlikely that you are of an age where any U.S. military personnel died for any
other reason than corporate profit and global domination, and if you are it's almost certain
you weren't old enough to have had mature thoughts about it at the time.
Whenever you criticize the U.S. war machine online within earshot of anyone who's
sufficiently propagandized, you will invariably be lectured about the second World War and how
we'd all be speaking German or Japanese without the brave men who died for our freedom. This
makes my point for me: the fact that apologists for U.S. imperialism always need to reach all
the way back through history to the cusp of living memory to find even one single example of
the American military being used for purposes that weren't evil proves that it most certainly
is evil.
But this is one of the main reasons there are so very many movies and history documentaries
made about World War II: it's an opportunity to portray U.S. servicemen bravely fighting and
dying for a noble cause without having to bend the truth beyond recognition. The other major
reason is that focusing on the second World War allows members of the U.S. empire to escape
into a time when the Big Bad Guy on the world stage was someone else.
From the end of World War II to the fall of the U.S.S.R., the U.S. military was used to
smash the spread of communism and secure geostrategic interests toward the ultimate end of
engineering the collapse of the Soviet Union. After this was accomplished in 1991, U.S. foreign
policy officially shifted to preserving a unipolar world order by preventing the rise of any
other superpower which could rival its might.
"In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense
Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era
will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or
the territory of the former Soviet Union.
A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for
weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states
that part of the American mission will be 'convincing potential competitors that they need
not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate
interests.'
The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose
position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter
any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."
This is all U.S. troops have been fighting and dying for since the Berlin Wall came down.
Not "freedom", not "democracy" and certainly not the American people. Just continual
uncontested domination of this planet at all cost: domination of its resources, its trade
routes, its seas, its air, and its humans, no matter how many lives need to risked and snuffed
out in order to achieve it. The U.S. has
killed millions and
displaced tens of millions just since the turn of this century in the reckless pursuit of
that goal.
And, as Smedley Butler spelled out 86 years ago in his still-relevant book War is a Racket , U.S.
military personnel have been dying for profit.
Nothing gets the gears of industry turning like war, and nothing better creates chaotic Wild
West environments of shock and confusion during which more wealth
and power can be grabbed. War profiteers pour immense resources into lobbying ,
think tanks and campaign donations to manipulate and bribe policy makers into making decisions
which promote war and military expansionism,
with astounding success . This is all entirely legal.
It's important to spread awareness that this is all U.S. troops have been dying for, because
the fairy tale that they fight for freedom and for their countrymen is a major propaganda
narrative used in military recruitment. While poverty plays a
significant role in driving up enlistments as predatory recruiters target poor and middle
class youth promising them a future in the nation with the worst income
inequality in the industrialized world, the fact that the aggressively propagandized
glorification of military "service" makes it a more esteemed career path than working at a
restaurant or a grocery store means people are more likely to enlist.
Without all that propaganda deceiving people into believing that military work is something
virtuous, military service would be the most shameful job anyone could possibly have; other
stigmatized jobs like sex work would be regarded as far more noble. You'd be less reluctant to
tell your extended family over Christmas that you're a janitor at a seedy massage parlor than
that you've enlisted in the U.S. military, because instead of congratulating and praising you,
your Uncle Murray would look at you and say, "So you're gonna be killing kids for crude
oil?"
And that's exactly how it should be. Continuing to uphold the lie that U.S. troops fight and
die for a good cause is helping to ensure a steady supply of teenagers to feed into the gears
of the imperial war machine. Stop feeding into the lie that the war machine is worth killing
and being killed for. Not out of disrespect for the dead, but out of reverence for the
living.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
of Consortium News .
Em , June 1, 2021 at 09:52
Instead of annually memorializing those dead youth, who were, in one way or the other,
coerced to go off to foreign lands to kill or be killed, by other youth, in the name of a
piece of dead symbolic cloth, wouldn't it be a better idea to honor them, while alive in the
prime of living (the world over) by affording them the means to learn, leading by example, to
discover for themselves – how to think critically as to what the real options are,
collectively as well as individually, for survival and thriving.
CNfan , June 1, 2021 at 04:06
"Global domination" for the benefit of a predatory financial oligarchy.
Peter Loeb , June 1, 2021 at 09:11
Read William Hartung's "Prophets of War " to understand the dynamics.
Thank you all for speaking your truth in this dystopian human universe so apparently
lacking human reason and understanding. As is so wisely introduced and recognized herein, the
murderous depravity of the "Wolfwitz Doctrine" being and remaining the public policy
formulation of our national governance, both foreign and domestic, is a fact that every U.S.
citizen should consider and understand on this Memorial Day.
As Usual,
EA
Realist , May 31, 2021 at 17:27
Well stated, perfectly logical again on this subject as always, Caitlin. You out the
warmongers for their game to fleece the public and rape the world all so a handful of already
fat, lazyass but enormously wealthy and influential people can acquire, without the slightest
bit of shame, yet more, more and more of everything there is to be had. You and General
Butler.
Will this message get through, this time? Maybe the billionth time is the charm, eh? Can
the scales suddenly fall from the eyes of the 330 million Americans who will then demand an
immediate end to the madness? On the merits, it's the only conclusion that might realise any
actual justice for our country and the rest of the world upon whose throat it keeps a knee
firmly planted.
Sorry, nothing of the sort shall ever happen, not as long as the entire mercenary mass
media obeys its corporate ownership and speaks nothing but false narratives every minute of
every day. Not as long as the educational system is really nothing more than a propaganda
indoctrination experience for every child born in the glorious USA! Not as long as every
politician occupying any given office is just a bought and paid for tool of the Matrix with
great talents for convincing the masses that 2 + 2 = 3, or 5, or whatever is convenient at
the time to benefit the ledgers of their plutocrat masters.
What better illustrates the reality of my last assertion than the occupancy of the White
House by Sleepy/Creepy Joe Biden who, through age alone, has been reduced to nothing more
than a sack of unresponsive meat firmly trussed up with ropes and pulleys that his handlers
pull this way or that to create an animatronic effect apparently perfectly convincing to the
majority of the American public? Or so they say, based upon some putative election
results.
Truly, thanks for the effort, Caitlin. I do appreciate that some have a grasp on the
truth. I look forward to its recapitulation by yourself and many others to no effect on every
Memorial Day in the USA. It would be unrealistic of me to say otherwise.
Rael Nidess, M.D. , May 31, 2021 at 12:54
Kudos for being one of a very few to mention the central driving ethic behind U.S. foreign
policy since the demise of the USSR: The Wolfowitz Doctrine. As central today as it was when
first published.
. . . which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters, particularly educated suburbanites
who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.
When I first met my wife, she told me women shouldn't have the right to vote. It was instant love.
A Girl In Flyover Country 59 minutes ago
[in case of Cheney] The war monger doesn't fall far from the tree.
Rise21 42 minutes ago remove link
Amazing how the liberal news outlets are now supporting a Cheney. But they know more war equals more rating
yochananmichael 51 seconds ago
its time for the republicans to rid itself of chicken hawk warmongers like Cheney.
He father disbanded there Iraqi Army which was supposed to provide security, causing an insurgency and 5000 dead American boys
and countless maimed.
vic and blood PREMIUM 4 minutes ago
Cheney's benefactors have erected massive billboards all over the state, 'thanking her for defending the Constitution.'
She has an incredible war chest, and sadly, money and advertising decides a lot of elections.
France is was denying any discomfort with Zionism for 52 years. but since yesterday
effect of
Plate tectonics are perceptible.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of
"long-lasting apartheid" in Israel. The veteran politician [and high rank French official
for 40 years with solid connection to French weapons trade] made the remarks in an interview
with LCI TV NewsChannel, RTL radio and Le Figaro newspaper [ three major MSM]
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of "long-lasting
apartheid" in Israel in the event the Palestinians fail to obtain their own state. Le Drian is one of the first senior French officials to use the term "apartheid" in
reference to Israel , which has angrily denied any policy of racial discrimination.
The veteran politician made the remarks in an interview with RTL radio and Le Figaro
newspaper in reference to the clashes between Jews and Arabs that erupted in several
Israeli cities during the latest conflict.
The violence, which revealed simmering anger among Israeli Arabs over the crackdown on
Palestinians in Jerusalem, shattered years of peaceful coexistence within Israel. "It's the first time and it clearly shows that if in the future we had a solution other
than the two-state solution, we would have the ingredients of long-lasting apartheid,"
Le Drian said, using the word for the white supremacist oppression of blacks in South
Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Le Drian said the "risk of apartheid is high" if Israel continued to act "according to a
single-state logic" but also if it maintained the status quo.
"Even the status quo produces that," he said.
He added that the 11-day conflict between Hamas and Israel had shown the need to revive the
moribund Middle East peace process. https://guardian.ng/news/france-sees-risk-of-apartheid-in-israel-paris-france/
"We have take one step at a time," he said, expressing satisfaction that US President Joe
Biden had reiterated support for creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Israel's latest offensive against Hamas killed 248 people in the Gaza Strip, including 66
children, and wounded over 1,900, the Hamas-run health ministry said.
Meanwhile, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups into Israel killed 12 and wounded
around 357 others, Israeli police said.
@120 m - "Iron Dome system according to Israeli sources..."
The point is not the numbers taken from the sales brochure of the system. The point is,
what does the penetration of the fantasy shield do to the Israeli psyche?
Israel initiated the ceasefire, without conditions. After 11 days, it could take no
more.
Israel has failed to protect itself from the indigenous population that it was oppressing.
Palestine has won a victory that changes the game and changes the world.
The entire regional Resistance now knows that Palestine alone can hold the enemy in check.
And all the Palestinians everywhere are completely united with only the Resistance as their
leader.
Over at the Saker just now, a speech from Hezbollah acknowledges proudly that Palestine
itself is now the leading edge of the struggle to remove Israel from the Middle East, and
that Hezbollah yearns for the day when it joins side by side with the Palestinians to drive
the oppressor from the land.
Palestine as it says could keep up this barrage against Israel for six months - just
Palestine alone. And the damage from such a thing would not be measured in how few or how
many individual persons were killed by those rockets. The damage would be measured by the
scream of madness and defeat from the Zionist oppressor, thrown down by the indigenous
populace and cast out of the land in abject fear.
As barflies can see, There may be an undefined 'ceasefire' but the 100 year old ethnic
cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues:
Israel's Daily Toll on Palestinian Life, Limb, Liberty and Land
(Compiled by Leslie Bravery, Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Auckland, New Zealand)
18 May 2021 {Main source of statistics: Palestinian Monitoring Group (PMG): http://www.nad.ps/ NB:The period covered by this
newsletter is taken from the PMG's 24-hour sitrep ending 8am the day after the above
date.}
We shall always do our best to verify the accuracy of all items in these IOP
newsletters/reports wherever possible [e.g. we often suspect that names of people and places
that we see in the PMG sitreps could be typos; also frequently the translation into English
seems rather odd ~ but as we do not speak Arabic, we have no alternative but to copy and
paste these names from the PMG sitreps!] – please forgive us for any errors or
omissions – Leslie and Marian.
206 projectiles
launched from Gaza
82 air strikes (157)
Very many
Israeli attacks
158 Israeli
ceasefire violations
21 raids including
home invasions
11 killed – 261 injured
Economic sabotage
43 taken prisoner
Night peace disruption
and/or home invasions
in 6 towns and villages
Home invasions: 09:20, Nazlet al-Sheikh Zaid - 09:20, al-Arqa - 04:00, Anabta - 03:30, Madama
- 03:30, Tel.
Peace disruption raids: 14:40, Beitunya - 16:05, Um Safa village - 03:20, Bir Zeit - dawn,
Bil'in - 17:40, Tura village - 18:55, Ya'bad - 19:45, Zububa - 06:30, Tubas - 18:05, Quffin -
04:00, Tulkarem - 20:00, Aqraba - 13:45, al-Azza UN refugee camp - 13:45, Aida UN refugee
camp - 18:10, al-Khadr - 18:10, Janata - 20:15, Tuqu - 03:00, al-Ubeidiya - dawn, Husan -
dawn, al-Ubeidiya.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day, 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Northern Gaza – 53
projectiles launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza – 81 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Central Gaza – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 38 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza enclave – from 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, Israeli warplanes carried out 82 air strikes, launching 157 missiles onto
Gaza. There were 7 killed, 50 injured, 35 homes destroyed and much damage caused.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Northern Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 21
air strikes – 35 missiles: 16 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 27 missiles: 6 killed (including a child), 15 injured (including women and
children) and 7 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Central Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 14
air strikes – 20 missiles: 11injured and 6 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Khan Yunis – Israeli warplanes launched 13
air strikes – 46 missiles: 1 killed, 14 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Rafah – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 29 missiles. 3 injured and 2 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – Israeli attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, the Israeli Army and Navy pounded Central Gaza, Khan Yunis and Rafah.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Jerusalem – Israeli Occupation forces opened
fire, with live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters on
protesters in Shuafat, al-Zaim, al-Jib, Beit Ijza, Qalandiya, near the villages of Qatanna
and al-Issawiya, as well as in Abu Dis, al-Eizariya and at the entrances to Hizma,
al-Sawahrah al-Sharqiya, Anata, the al-Ram road junction, Bab al-Amoud area and al-Wad Street
in Jerusalem Old City. 18 protesters were wounded.
Israeli Army attack: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli Occupation forces opened fire on
Palestinian motor vehicles in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood.
Israeli Army attacks – 3 killed – 72 wounded: Ramallah – Israeli forces in
or near al-Bireh, Sinjil, Aboud, Ni'lin, al-Mughayer, Deir Jarir, Kafr Malik, Nabi Salih, Ein
Qiniya, Ras Karkar, Kharbatha Bani Harith, Beit Sira, al-Jalazoun refugee camp, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
killing 3 people, Muhammad Mahmoud Hamid (24), Adham Fayez Al-Kashef (20) and Islam Wael
Fahmy Barnat, and wounding 72. There were many tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 4 wounded: Jenin – Israeli troops, manning the Jalamah and
Dotan checkpoints and at the southern entrance to Silat al-Dahr, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 4
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 7 wounded: Tulkarem – Israeli forces, manning the Einav
checkpoint and troops in Tulkarem, Quffin, Zit and at the entrance to Beit Lid, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
wounding 7 and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 8 wounded: Qalqiliya – Israeli Occupation forces, at the
entrances to Azun, Hajjah, and Kafr Qaddum as well as near Jayus, Hablat and at the Eyal
crossing, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters
towards protesters, wounding 8 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 33 wounded: Nablus – Israeli Army positions, near the
Huwara checkpoint, the intersection of Osirin and Sarra villages and near the entrances to
Qusra, Beta, Jama'in, Naqoura, Deir Sharaf, Burin, Madama, Asirah al-Qibliya, Yutma,
al-Labban al-Sharqiya, Odla, al-Sawiyah and the village of Tal, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 33
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks: Salfit – Israeli troops, near the entrances to Deir Istiya,
Qarawat Bani Hassan, al-Zawiya and the northern entrance to Salfit, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters. There were
several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Bethlehem – Israeli forces, present at Bilal
Bin Rabah Mosque, the Aida refugee camp, northern entrance to Tuqu', western entrance to Beit
Fajar, Um Rakba area of al-Khadr and entrance to Husan, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated
bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 18 people and
causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 1 killed: Hebron – morning, Israeli Occupation forces,
positioned in the Old City, opened fire on and killed a resident: Islam Fayyad Zahida
(32).
Israeli Army attacks – 30 wounded: Hebron – the Israeli Army, positioned in the
Bab al-Zawiya area of Hebron and in the Old City, as well as near the entrances to Beit
Ummar, Bani Naim, Tarqumiya, Khurasa village, the al-Aroub refugee camp and on Halhul Bridge,
fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 30 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Economic sabotage: Gaza -- the Israeli Navy continues to enforce an arbitrary fishing
limit.
Home invasion: Jenin – 09:20, Israeli Occupation forces raided the villages of Nazlet
al-Sheikh Zaid and al-Arqa, and invaded a house.
Home invasion – boy (aged 15) abducted : Tulkarem – 04:00, Israeli troops raided
Anabta and abducted 15-year-old Muhammad Salam Wajih Rasheed.
Home invasions: Nablus – 03:30, Israeli forces raided Madama and Tel villages and
invaded a number of homes.
Israeli police and settlers' mosque violation: 23:00, Israeli Occupation police invaded the
courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, filming the Mosque and its facilities.
Israeli Army – 7 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Tubas – Israeli Occupation forces, manning the Tayasir checkpoint and in the
village of Atouf, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 7 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army – 5 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Jericho – Israeli forces, at the northern and southern entrances to Jericho,
as well as outside the Aqbat Jaber refugee camp, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades
and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 5 people and causing several tear gas
casualties.
Occupation settler violence: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli settlers stoned a family home,
on the outskirts of the village of Beit Ijza.
Occupation road casualties: Bethlehem – 16:40, an Israeli settler drove his motor
vehicle over and hospitalised a 19-year-old Abdullah Saqr Saad, near Khalet Iskarya.
Raid: Ramallah – 14:40, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Beitunya.
Raid: Ramallah – 16:05, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Um Safa village.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – 03:20, Israeli troops raided Bir Zeit, taking
prisoner one person.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Bil'in village,
taking prisoner one person.
Raid: Jenin – 17:40, Israeli troops raided and patrolled Tura village.
Raid: Jenin – 18:55, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Ya'bad.
Raid: Jenin – 19:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Zububa village.
Raid: Tubas – 06:30, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Tubas.
Raid: Tulkarem – 18:05, the Israeli Army raided and patrolled Quffin.
Raid: Tulkarem – 04:0 Israeli troops raided Tulkarem.
Raid: Nablus – 20:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Aqraba.
Raid – UN refugee camps: Bethlehem – 13:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and
patrolled the al-Azza and Aida UN refugee camps in Bethlehem.
Raid: Bethlehem – 18:10, Israeli forces raided and patrolled al-Khadr and Janata.
Raid – 2 abductions: Bethlehem – 20:15, Israeli troops raided Tuqu and abducted
two 16-year-old youths: Muhammad Khaled Nasrallah and Sind Talal Al-Amor.
Raid: Bethlehem – 03:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled al-Ubeidiya.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Husan village,
taking prisoner two people.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, Israeli Occupation forces raided
al-Ubeidiya, taking prisoner twopeople.
Restrictions of movement (14): 11:30, entrance to Turmusaya- 11:20, tightened procedures at
Huwara - 12:00, tightened procedures at Kifl Haris - 12:50, entrance to al-Zawiya -
11:25-12:30, al-Nashash road junction - 14:10, entrance to al-Walaja village - midnight,
entrance to Marah Mualla - 09:15, entrance to the Fahs area, south of Hebron - 18:45,
entrance to Sa'ir - Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing closed - al-Mantar-Karni crossing closed -
al-Shujaiyeh crossing (Nahal Oz) closed - Sufa crossing closed - al-Awda Port closed.
[NB: Times indicated in Bold Type contribute to the sleep deprivation suffered by Palestinian
children]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If any of our subscribers should like to reproduce complete, in full and unedited, these In
Occupied Palestine daily newsletters that would be very welcome!
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let us know and if you have friends or
family who would like to receive them ask them to contact us at [email protected]
...
@ Paul, "100 year old ethnic cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues",
but Tectonic plates still moving, collapse of an edifice of complacency
David Horovitz is the founding editor of The Times of Israel. He previously edited The
Jerusalem Post (2004-2011) and The Jerusalem Report (1998-2004).
"It doesn't matter that Hamas is a repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamist terrorist
organization that fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately at innocent civilians all
over the State of Israel...
[...]
It doesn't matter...
[...]
Again, it doesn't matter, because we are no longer avowedly seeking, even in principle, a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- the currently and foreseeably
insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And since we no longer avowedly aspire to be part
of the solution, we are increasingly perceived as part of the problem, as
rejectionists.
[...]
Israel still has plenty of friends, and plenty of support, including crucially in the US.
Three EU foreign ministers chose to make a solidarity visit to bombed Israeli homes at the
height of the conflict. But the ground is shifting dangerously.
Many of us, this writer emphatically included, regard a two-state solution as essential
if we are not to lose either our Jewish majority, or our democracy, or both, forever
entangled among millions of hostile Palestinians. Many of us, this writer emphatically
included, cannot currently see a safe route to such an accommodation.
For the last time, it doesn't matter. So long as Israel does not place itself firmly and
distinctly on the side of those seeking a viable framework for long-term peace and security
for ourselves and for the Palestinians, we will be regarded as blocking that framework. And
even when facing an enemy so patently cynical, amoral and intransigent as Hamas, militarily
strong Israel will be held responsible for the loss of life on both sides of the
conflict. We may keep on winning the battles, though they will get harder if fighting spreads to
and deepens on other fronts. But we will be gradually losing the war.
In an interview with Fox News ' Bret Baier this week, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) denied that she
spread the
discredited CIA "Russian bounty" story. That CIA tale, claiming Russia was paying Taliban
fighters to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, was cooked up by the CIA and then published by The
New York Times on June 27 of last year, right as former President Trump announced
his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. The Times story, citing anonymous
intelligence officials, was then continually invoked by pro-war Republicans and Democrats --
led by Cheney -- to justify their blocking of that troop withdrawal. The story was discredited
when the U.S. intelligence community admitted last month
that it had only "low to moderate confidence" that any of this even happened.
When Baier asked Cheney about her role in spreading this debunked CIA story, Cheney
blatantly lied to him, claiming "if you go back and look at what I said -- every single thing I
said : I said if those stories are true , we need to know why the President and Vice President
were not briefed on them." After Baier pressed her on the fact that she vested this story with
credibility, Cheney insisted a second time that she never endorsed the claim but merely spoke
conditionally, always using the "if these reports are true" formulation. Watch Cheney deny her
role in spreading that story.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fd6u_p0K9aE
Liz Cheney, as she so often does, blatantly lied. That she merely spoke of the Russian
bounty story in the conditional -- " every single thing I said: I said if those stories are
true" -- is completely and demonstrably false. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) , there are few if
any members of Congress who did more to spread this Russian bounty story as proven truth, all
in order to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In so doing, she borrowed from a pro-war
playbook pioneered by her dad, to whom she owes her career: the former Vice President
would leak CIA claims to The New York Times to justify war, then go on Meet the Press with
Tim Russert, as he did on September
8, 2002 , and cite those New York Times reports as though they were independent
confirmation of his views coming from that paper rather than from him:
MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has [Saddam] obtained that you believe would enhance his
nuclear development program? ..
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or
highly enriched uranium. And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to
the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is
trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able
to enrich uranium to make the bombs.
MR. RUSSERT: Aluminum tubes.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in The New York Times this
morning this is -- I don't -- and I want to attribute The Times . I don't want to talk about,
obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, [Saddam] has
been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring
through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.
And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched
uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.
So having CIA stories leak to the press that fuel the pro-war case, then having pro-war
politicians cite those to justify their pro-war position, is a Cheney Family speciality.
On July 1, the House Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Cheney is a member, debated
amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that authorized $740.5 billion
in military spending. One of Cheney's top priorities was to align with the Committee's pro-war
Democrats, funded by weapons manufacturers, to block Trump's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops
from Afghanistan by the end of 2020 and to withdraw roughly 1/3 of the 34,000 U.S. troops in
Germany.
To justify her opposition, Cheney -- contrary to what she repeatedly insisted to Baier --
cited the CIA's Russian bounty story without skepticism . In a joint statement with Rep. Mac
Thornberry (R-TX), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, that Cheney published
on her website on June 27 -- the same day that The New York Times published its first story
about the CIA tale -- Cheney pronounced herself "concerned about Russian activity in
Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces." There was nothing
conditional about the statement: they were preparing to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan
and cited this story as proof that "Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan."
After today's briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about
Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It
has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it
is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country
targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the
security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need.
An even more definitive use of this Russia bounty story came when Cheney held a press
conference to explain her opposition to Trump's plans to withdraw troops. In this statement,
she proclaimed that she "remains concerned about Russian activities in Afghanistan." She then
explicitly threatened Russia over the CIA's "bounty" story, warning them that "any targeting of
U.S. forces by Russians, by anyone else, will face a very swift and deadly response." She then
gloated about the U.S. bombing of Russia-linked troops in Syria in 2018 using what she called
"overwhelming and lethal force," and warned that this would happen again if they target U.S.
forces in Afghanistan:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_NUXZog_Vf0
Does this sound even remotely like what Cheney claimed to Baier? She denied having played a
key role in spreading the Russia bounty story because, as she put it, " every single thing I
said, I said: if those stories are true." She also told him that she never referred to that CIA
claim except by saying: "if these reports are true." That is false.
The issue is not merely that Cheney lied: that would hardly be news. It is that the entire
media narrative about Cheney's removal from her House leadership role is a fraud. Her attacks
on Trump and her party leadership were not confined to criticisms of the role played by the
former president in contesting the validity of the 2020 election outcome or inciting the
January 6 Capitol riot -- because Liz Cheney is such a stalwart defender of the need for truth
and adherence to the rule of law in politics.
Cheney played the key role in
forming an alliance with pro-war Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to
repeatedly defeat the bipartisan anti-war minority [led by Ro Khanna (D-CA), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
(D-HI) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)] to prevent any meaningful changes promised by Trump during
the 2016 campaign to put an end to the U.S. posture of Endless War. As I
reported about the House Armed Services Committee hearing last July, the CIA tale was
repeatedly cited by Cheney and her allies to justify ongoing U.S. troop presence in
Afghanistan.
Cheney is motivated by power, not ethics. In 2016, Trump ran -- and won -- by explicitly
inveighing against the Bush/Cheney foreign policy of endless war, militarism and imperialism
that Liz Cheney, above all else, still vehemently supports. What she is attempting to do is
reclaim the Republican Party and deliver it back to the neocons and warmongers who dominated it
under her father's reign. She is waging an ideological battle, not an ethical one, for control
of the Republican Party.
That will be a debate for Republican voters to resolve. In the meantime, Liz Cheney cannot
be allowed to distance herself from the CIA's fairy tale about Russians in Afghanistan. Along
with pro-war Democrats, she used this conveniently leaked CIA story repeatedly to block troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan. And just as her father taught her to do -- by example if not
expressly -- she is now lying to distance herself from a pro-war CIA script that she, in fact,
explicitly promoted.
For those who have not seen it, I produced a one-hour video report last July on how and why
the House Armed Services Committee succeeded in enacting virtually every pro-war amendment they
considered and how this was accomplished through
an alliance between Liz Cheney and her neocon GOP allies on the one hand, and pro-war,
Raytheon-funded Democrats on the other:
Circular politics, who knew? Happens all the time. 'Leak' a story to a paper that for sure
will publish it, and quote that very same story to push whatever it is you, or more
precisely, your backers, want. Nobody wants war, why is the US spending almost $1T on
defense? Nobody else is spending that kind of money, the MIC is able to force down whatever
it wants on the compliant press, and gullible public
Demologos 7 hours ago
Liz Cheney is carrying daddy's water. This is why there should have been war crimes trials
for the fake wars promoted by the neocons for the benefit of the Wall Street/London/MIC
complex. If Daddy Darth had swung from a rope we wouldn't be dealing with the current
mess.
You can blame the fake news media for the lack of consequences. When they want to, they
can take a thimble full of bad behavior and turn it into an Olympic size pool of condemnation
and character assassination. They were given an Olympic size pool of outright lies and
corruption related to the illegal wars and didn't see anything that offended their sense of
human decency and justice. But a thug dies in the street and the fake news machine turns him
into the national martyr for systemic racism.
vic and blood PREMIUM 7 hours ago remove link
Look at how many RINOs are swamp creatures who establish residency in lower population
states, where campaign cash goes further.
**** Cheney was a swamp creature and fake Wyoming person, just like Liz Cheney.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy 7 hours ago
McCain did that in the 1970s. Abandoned his wheelchair-bound wife and his kids, then
married a rich drug addict in a new State.
pndr4495 7 hours ago
As I have repeated many times here on ZH, a politician is not seriously concerned about
representing the constituents. The politician is busy with reprenting his/her own interests,
especially the financial interest.
vic and blood PREMIUM 7 hours ago remove link
Liz Cheney is a perfect example of how little the neocons differ from the neolibs. They
are the same thing with different cynical marketing strategies.
HAL9000rev1 7 hours ago (Edited)
The roots of neocon philosophy is Trotskyism. Neocons are left/right agnostic, they latch
on to which ever political party in power.
perpetual war/perpetual revolution is thier stratagy
freedommusic 8 hours ago (Edited)
Language was invented so people can lie.
Politics was invented so people can make a career out of lying.
Paul Bunyan 8 hours ago remove link
Language was invented to communicate, but yes, people take advantage.
Pretty Like an Ugly Girl 7 hours ago
I confess that in 2001, and until about 2008, I was part of the crowd that bought the
whole ******* line. Then with Obama I fell for the ******** that it's better to vote for the
lesser of two evils.
Then I started watching the countless documentaries on 911 that show the official 911
report is a bigger concoction of horse**** than the Warren Report. Here's the definitive
documentary, for any searchers out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
The thing about Cheney back in the day is that he seemed like the most credible/reasonable
man in government. I remember after he debated Joe Lieberman how everybody wished they were
both at the tops of their tickets.
Bottom line is we believe what aligns with what we want to believe, and they know it, and
they took down the towers knowing the majority of the US would be willing to go to war with
the entire world if need be.
Folks who think the covid scam or the stolen election was the beginning of the breakdown
haven't been paying attention. The people haven't been in control of their country for a
long, long time, if ever.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
There are anti-human mimicks born, psychopaths, that literally have to study human
emotion, learn it and parrot it. That's why when one watches you, especially at first
encounter, it's so intense.
They are analyzing your every facial crease and body language trying to decode the human
and what it all means. When they lie they will sometimes pause to do this to see if it's
fully taking. They often can't tell if what they are saying is too absurd, they wait for you
to show them. They develop this skill over time.
What's even creepier, is that since they don't use empathy capacity and other human
tendencies, that brain capacity becomes devoted to their predatory nature, analyzing,
imitating and being phony. So they are damn near preternatural at it. They know your
weaknesses and needs immediately.
In addition to their dead, intense analyzing stare, they don't recognize that their stare
is too intense and that they often get too close. Like if this fatty had halitosis for
example, she would always just be at least a little too close to you. They don't understand
what it is about people that wants space They don't have that feeling either. When you squirm
and try to get away, they won't notice or care, unless they are doing it on purpose to
intimidate. They can also lie with ease, because they don't have any of those things that
makes people moral. They are simply annoyances to them. It pisses them off that they have to
pretend to care.
wellwaddyaknow 7 hours ago
So in other words, the CIA makes sht up, floats it out there in the direction of dumb
gullible compromised power hungry members of congress, and then wait to see who picks it up
and smells it.
Ditto. I am sure the CIA will be grinding the generals as we speak. Even the letter in
Politico could well be one of their strategies. I posted a piece in the open thread yesterday
from The HILL that was
pure propaganda.
USA is not alone in losing guerrilla warfare.
Watch for Biden announcing a 'shake up' of the military command in the next few
weeks/months.
The US military 2021 retreat from Kabul will result in a slaughter in the USA.
I see the Pentagon pulling the plug on the opium income for the CIA. Now THAT is the real
war. So the CIA now has to pay its mercenary army to defend the harvest and extraction. That
added cost to the CIA will not be taken lightly.
"... By Tom Engelhardt. Originally published at TomDispatch ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... I supported the rule of law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. ..."
"... In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways. ..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive rearmament of other countries.†..."
Yves here. Englehardt describes how US war-making has been a continuing exercise starting
with World War II. It’s important to recognize that before that, US military
budgets were modest both in national and global terms. But with manufacturing less specialized,
the US was able to turn a considerable amount of its productive capacity to armaments in fairly
short order.
A second point is as someone who was in Manhattan on 9/11, I did not experience the attacks
as war. I saw them as very impressive terrorism. However, I was appalled at how quickly
individuals in positions of authority pushed sentiment in that direction. The attack was on a
Tuesday (I had a blood draw and voted before I even realized Something Bad had happened). I was
appalled to see the saber-rattling in Bush’s speech at the National
Cathedral on Friday. On Sunday, I decided to go to the Unitarian Church around the corner. I
was shocked to hear more martial-speak. And because the church was packed, I had to sit in the
front on the floor, which meant I couldn’t duck out.
Here’s the strange thing in an ever-stranger world: I was born in July
1944 in the midst of a devastating world war. That war ended in August 1945 with the atomic
obliteration of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the most devastating bombs in
history up to that moment, given the sweet code names
“Little Boy†and “Fat Man.â€
I was the littlest of boys at the time. More than three-quarters of a century has passed
since, on September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Yoshijiro
Umezu
signed the Instrument of Surrender on the battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay,
officially ending World War II. That was V-J (for Victory over Japan) Day, but in a sense for
me, my whole generation, and this country, war never really ended.
The United States has been at war, or at least in armed conflicts of various sorts, often in
distant lands, for more or less my entire life. Yes, for some of those years, that war was
“cold†(which often meant that such carnage, regularly sponsored
by the CIA, happened largely off-screen and out of sight), but war as a way of life never
really ended, not to this very moment.
In fact, as the decades went by, it would become the
“infrastructure†in which Americans increasingly invested their
tax dollars via aircraft
carriers , trillion-dollar jet fighters, drones armed
with Hellfire missiles, and the creation and maintenance of hundreds of military garrisons
around the globe, rather than roads, bridges, or
rail lines (no less the high-speed
version of the same) here at home. During those same years, the Pentagon budget would grab
an ever-larger percentage of
federal discretionary spending and the full-scale annual investment in what has come to be
known as the national security state would rise to a staggering $1.2
trillion or more.
In a sense, future V-J Days became inconceivable. There were no longer moments, even as wars
ended, when some version of peace might descend and America’s vast military
contingents could, as at the end of World War II, be significantly demobilized. The closest
equivalent was undoubtedly the moment when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the Cold War
officially ended, and the Washington establishment declared itself globally triumphant. But of
course, the promised “peace dividend†would never be paid out as
the first Gulf War with Iraq occurred that very year and the serious downsizing of the U.S.
military (and the CIA) never happened.
Never-Ending War
Consider it typical that, when President Biden recently
announced the official ending of the nearly 20-year-old American conflict in Afghanistan
with the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from that country by 9/11/21, it would functionally
be paired with the news that the
Pentagon budget was about to rise yet again from its record heights in the Trump years.
“Only in America,†as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and
historian William Astore wrote recently,
“do wars end and war budgets go up.â€
Of course, even the ending of that never-ending Afghan War may prove exaggerated. In fact,
let’s consider Afghanistan apart from the rest of this
country’s war-making history for a moment. After all, if I had told you in
1978 that, of the 42 years to follow, the U.S. would be involved in war in a single country for
30 of them and asked you to identify it, I can guarantee that Afghanistan
wouldn’t have been your pick. And yet so it’s been. From
1979 to 1989, there was the
CIA-backed Islamist extremist war against the Soviet army there (to the tune of billions
and billions of dollars). And yet the obvious lesson the Russians learned from that adventure,
as their military limped home in defeat and the Soviet Union imploded not long after
â€" that Afghanistan is indeed the “graveyard of
empires†â€" clearly had no impact in Washington.
Or how do you explain the 19-plus years of warfare there that followed the 9/11 attacks,
themselves committed by a small Islamist outfit, al-Qaeda, born as an American ally in that
first Afghan War? Only recently, the invaluable Costs of War Project
estimated that America’s second Afghan War has cost this country almost
$2.3 trillion (not including the price of lifetime care for its vets) and has left at least
241,000 people dead, including 2,442 American service members. In 1978, after the disaster of
the Vietnam War, had I assured you that such a never-ending failure of a conflict was in our
future, you would undoubtedly have laughed in my face.
And yet, three decades later, the U.S. military high command still seems not faintly to have
grasped the lesson that we “taught†the Russians and then
experienced ourselves. As a result, according to recent reports, they have uniformly
opposed President Biden’s decision to withdraw all American troops from
that country by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. In fact, it’s not even clear
that, by September 11, 2021, if the president’s proposal goes according to
plan, that war will have truly ended. After all, the same military commanders and intelligence
chiefs seem intent on organizing long-distance versions of that conflict or, as the New
York Timesput
it , are determined to “fight from afar†there. They are
evidently even considering
establishing new bases in neighboring lands to do so.
America’s
“forever wars†â€" once known as the Global War on
Terror and, when the administration of George W. Bush launched it, proudly aimed at 60 countries â€"
do seem to be slowly winding down. Unfortunately, other kinds of potential wars, especially new
cold wars with China and Russia (involving new kinds of
high-tech weaponry) only seem to be gearing up.
War in Our Time
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was
ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for
Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making,
but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military
was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways.
In the years that followed, for instance, the elite Green Berets of the Vietnam era would be
incorporated into an ever more expansive set of Special Operations forces, up to 70,000 of
them (larger, that is, than the armed forces of many countries). Those special operators would
functionally become a second, more secretive American military embedded inside the larger force
and largely freed from citizen oversight of any sort. In 2020, as Nick Turse reported, they
would be stationed in a staggering 154 countries
around the planet, often involved in semi-secret conflicts “in the
shadows†that Americans would pay remarkably little attention to.
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American life.
Yes, there have been the endless thank-yous
offered by citizens and corporations to “the troops.†But
that’s where the attentiveness stops, while both political parties, year
after endless year, remain remarkably
supportive of a growing Pentagon budget and the industrial (that is, weapons-making) part
of the military-industrial complex. War, American-style, may be forever, but â€"
despite, for instance, the militarization
of this country’s police and the way in which those wars came home
to the Capitol last January 6th â€" it remains a remarkably distant reality for most
Americans.
One explanation: though the U.S. has, as I’ve said, been functionally at
war since 1941, there were just two times when this country felt war directly â€" on
December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and on September 11, 2001, when 19
mostly Saudi hijackers in commercial jets struck New York’s World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
And yet, in another sense, war has been and remains us. Let’s just
consider some of that war-making for a moment. If you’re of a certain age,
you can certainly call to mind the big wars: Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1954-1975)
â€" and don’t forget the brutal bloodlettings in neighboring Laos
and Cambodia as well â€" that first Gulf War of 1991, and the disastrous second one,
the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, of course, there was that Global War on Terror that began
soon after September 11, 2001, with the invasion of Afghanistan, only to spread to much of the
rest of the Greater Middle East, and to significant parts of Africa. In March, for instance,
the
first 12 American special-ops trainers
arrived in embattled Mozambique, just one more small extension of an already widespread
American anti-Islamist terror role (
now failing ) across much of that continent.
And then, of course, there were the smaller conflicts (though not necessarily so to the
people in the countries involved) that we’ve now generally forgotten about,
the ones that I had to search my fading brain to recall. I mean, who today thinks much about
President John F. Kennedy’s April 1961 CIA disaster at the Bay of Pigs in
Cuba; or President Lyndon Johnson’s sending of 22,000 U.S. troops to the
Dominican Republic in 1965 to “restore orderâ€; or President
Ronald Reagan’s version of “aggressive
self-defense†by U.S. Marines sent to Lebanon who, in October 1983, were attacked
in their barracks by a suicide bomber, killing 241 of them;
or the anti-Cuban invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada that
same month in which 19 Americans were killed and 116 wounded?
And then, define and categorize them as you will, there were the CIA’s
endless militarized attempts (sometimes with the help of the U.S. military) to intervene in the
affairs of other countries, ranging from taking the nationalist side against Mao
Zedong’s communist forces in China from 1945 to 1949 to stoking a small ongoing
conflict in Tibet in the 1950s and early 1960s, and overthrowing the governments of Guatemala
and Iran, among other places. There were an
estimated 72 such interventions from 1947 to 1989, many warlike in nature. There were, for
instance, the proxy conflicts in Central America, first in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas
and then in El Salvador, bloody events even if few U.S. soldiers or CIA agents died in them.
No, these were hardly “wars,†as traditionally defined, not all
of them, though they did sometimes involve military coups and the like, but they were generally
carnage-producing in the countries they were in. And that only begins to suggest the range of
this country’s militarized interventions in the post-1945 era, as journalist
William Blum’s “
A Brief History of Interventions †makes all too clear.
Whenever you look for the equivalent of a warless American moment, some reality trips you
up. For instance, perhaps you had in mind the brief period between when the Red Army limped
home in defeat from Afghanistan in 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, that
moment when Washington politicians, initially shocked that the Cold War had ended so
unexpectedly, declared themselves triumphant on Planet Earth. That brief period might almost
have passed for “peace,†American-style, if the U.S. military
under President George H. W. Bush hadn’t, in fact, invaded Panama
(“Operation Just Causeâ€) as 1989 ended to get rid of its
autocratic leader Manuel Noriega (a former CIA asset, by the way). Up to 3,000 Panamanians
(including many civilians) died along with 23 American troops in that episode.
And then, of course, in January 1991 the First Gulf War began . It
would result in perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths and “onlyâ€
a few hundred deaths among the U.S.-led coalition of forces. Air strikes against Iraq would
follow in the years to come. And let’s not forget that even Europe
wasn’t exempt since, in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the
U.S. Air Force launched a destructive 10-week bombing
campaign against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.
And all of this remains a distinctly incomplete list, especially in this century when
something like 2
00,000 U.S. troops have regularly been stationed abroad and U.S. Special Operations forces
have deployed to staggering numbers of countries, while American drones regularly attacked
“terrorists†in nation after nation and American presidents
quite literally became assassins-in-chief . To this day,
what scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson called
an American “empire of bases†â€" a historically
unprecedented 800 or more of them â€"
across much of the planet remains untouched and, at any moment, there could be more to come
from the country whose military budget
at least equals those of the next 10 (yes, that’s 10!) countries
combined, including China and Russia.
A Timeline of Carnage
The last three-quarters of this somewhat truncated post-World War II American Century have,
in effect, been a timeline of carnage, though few in this country would notice or acknowledge
that. After all, since 1945, Americans have only once been “at
war†at home, when almost 3,000 civilians died in an attack meant to provoke
â€" well, something like the war on terror that also become a war of terror and a
spreader of terror movements in our world.
As journalist William Arkin recently argued , the U.S. has created a
permanent war state meant to facilitate “endless war.†As he
writes, at this very moment, our nation “is killing or bombing in perhaps 10
different countries,†possibly more, and there’s nothing
remarkably out of the ordinary about that in our recent past.
The question that Americans seldom even think to ask is this: What if the U.S. were to begin
to dismantle its empire of bases,
repurpose so many of those militarized taxpayer dollars to our domestic needs, abandon this
country’s focus on permanent war, and forsake the Pentagon as our holy
church? What if, even briefly, the wars, conflicts, plots, killings, drone assassinations, all
of it stopped?
What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and came home?
Here in Asia, many people think the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was an act of
flaying the dying horse, since Japan was staring at defeat even without the bombs. It was a
totally callous act of the USA to drop the bombs just to “test their
efficacyâ€.
Why then the bombs could not have dropped on Germany that was still waging war at that
time? Asians smirk and say one) the “collateral†damage of
radiation etc., to neighbours like France who were Allies and two) they were (and are)
‘whites’; unlike Japan and its neighbours.
I think that you have the dates mixed up. The war against Germany in Europe ended on May
7th and the testing of the first atom bomb was not until 16th July when the first bomb went
off at Alamogordo in New Mexico. The following month the two remaining atom bombs that the US
had were dropped on Japan. In short, the bombs arrived too late to use in Europe.
The bomb was built with Berlin being the first target, but because the war ended a year
sooner than what everyone thought it would and making the very first bombs took longer than
planned, it was used on Japan. It was probably used as a demonstration for the Soviets, but
considering that sixty-six other large Japanese cities had already been completely destroyed
by “conventional†firebombing, and in
Tokyo’s case, with greater casualties than either nuclear bombing, the
Bomb wasn’t really needed. The descriptions and the personal accounts of
the destruction of Tokyo (or Dresden and Hamburg) are (if that is even possible) worse than
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Honestly, just what new and excitingly horrific ways of killing people the atom bomb used
was not clearly understood. They generally thought of it as a bigger kaboom in a smaller
package. And honestly, being pre-cremated during an entire night with your family and
neighbors in the local bomb-shelter or dying after a few days, weeks, or even a month from
radiation poisoning, is not really a difference is it?
“FOR 20 years after Harry Truman ordered the atomic bomb dropped on
Japan in August 1945, most American scholars and citizens subscribed to the original,
official version of the story: the President had acted to avert a horrendous invasion of
Japan that could have cost 200,000 to 500,000 American lives. Then a young political
economist named Gar Alperovitz published a book of ferocious revisionism,
“Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam†(1965). While
acknowledging the paucity of evidence available at the time, he argued that dropping the
atomic bomb “was not needed to end the war or to save livesâ€
but was Truman’s means of sending a chastening message to the Soviet
Union.â€
If we accept that at face value, then certainly the second bombing was unecessary. The
threat would have been enough. But the US had a second bomb design to
test…
Few things working here. The US needed Japan to surrender quickly before Stalin invaded
(which they asked him to do) so he couldn’t get his forces onto the island
where the Allies couldn’t stop him. Most Japanese feared Stalin and
preferred surrendering to the US but the Japanese government was trying to use talks with the
USSR to get better terms than unconditional surrender (little did they know Stalin was
licking his chops for more territory under his iron curtain).
The first bomb design (little man) was significantly less ambitious, it was so certain to
function they never tested it because a study had proven there was almost no chance it would
fail.
Fat boy was the scientific leap in technology needing to be demonstrated. Building little
man was mostly a matter of enriching Uranium vs Fat boy Plutonium enrichment harder and
detonation mechanism more complicated. However the end result was a bomb that could produce
significantly higher yields with smaller amounts of fissionable material where both the size
of the bomb could be significantly reduced and the yield of the device could be significantly
scaled up at the same time.
Fat boy demonstrated the USA could someday be putting nukes on V2 rockets recently
smuggled out of Germany. Even more important Fat boy is a precursor to the mechanism that
initiates the H bomb fusion devices that Edward Teller would soon be Dr Strangloving.
Even after Trinity Fat boy still had very high odds of failure. They feared looking like
fools if it failed and the USSR ended up with the Plutoniumt. As a result the US Air Force
dropped little man first because it was certain to work. After the 1st bomb dropped, the
Soviets declared war and began their invasion of Japan which forced
Truman’s hand to drop Fat boy too. Even after Fat Boy, war mongers in
Japan still refused to surrender where Emperor Hirohito finally overruled them and although
there was a military coupe attempted, it failed.
Thus ended the most bloody conflict in the history of human kind.
I’m not saying it isn’t true, but is there any
actual evidence that the bombs were dropped as “a message to the Soviet
Union†and not to speed the end of the war?
Also, who exactly wanted to send this “message� The US
generals were against it, I understand.
“What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and
came home?â€
a. All those families whose livelihood is based on waging war would have to find a new
job. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
b. The resource grabs by the rich people behind the Oz-like curtain would fail. Their fate
would be that of the English aristocrats who have to rent out their castles in order to
maintain a roof over their head. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
c. The general public would have a fire-hose of newly-available resources to direct toward
activities which benefit all the rest of the families outside A and B above
d. Fear-based leverage by the few over the many would be diminished. Attention would be
re-directed toward valid problems we all face
=====
There’s an interesting question which I see posed from time to time,
and often ask myself. It runs thus:
“Who decides who our “enemies†are, and
why they are “enemies�
This is a fundamental question which I believe very few of us can currently answer
accurately. Yet this question carries a $1.2T per year consequence. That’s
a lot of money to allocate toward something we know nothing about.
One time I asked an acquaintance â€" who spent a career at CIA â€"
that question. His reply was “Why, Congress decides who our enemies are,
and why. Congress then tells the CIA what to doâ€.
I wasn’t sure if he truly believed that. It’s quite
possible he did, of course, and I’m sure many of the people in group A
above surely do think they’re doing honorable and patriotic work.
Group B above â€" the people who are actually moving the chess pieces of
“the Great Game†â€" they are pretty clear on who
defines our “enemies†and why they are
“enemiesâ€. And they wisely don’t stand in
front of podiums and explain their actions. These people aren’t visible,
or explained, or known because it’s better for them not to be.
The way to combat manipulation by these predators is to:
a. Know them by their actions. Predators predate.
b. Don’t participate. In order for them to predate, they need minions.
Don’t be a minion. Instead…
c. Be the giver, the creator and the constructor of things that are of no use to
predators
It’s not the soldiers but the contractors who live in dumpy overpriced
holes like Northern Virginia.
As to your acquaintance, my godfather was in the CIA in the 60’s and a
bit into the 70’s, and he might not say Congress as much as the
President’s Chief of Staff as threat they choose what the President sees.
You have to remember it’s primarily an organization of boring paper
pushers looking to get promoted which requires political patronage. Imagine getting the
Canada desk. You’ll be at a dead end unless you paint it as a grave
threat. Then there is information overload and just the sheer size of the US. They would file
reports, he mentioned an incident in Africa in the wake of decolonization when y godfather
was stationed there that maybe warranted the President’s attention, but to
get information to the President’s CoS took so long, it was in the
President’s daily newspaper before the report could be handled. By then,
why care, given the size of the US? Who can get to the Chief of Staff? Congress, so everyone
else lobbies them. The CIA director is an appendage of the CoS.
When the President wants something, everyone jumps, but when the President
doesn’t care, everyone is jockeying get for patronage.
The war machine is sustained by plutocrats and their sociopathic flunkies in the national
security state. How this works is clearly depicted in “The
Devil’s Chessboard,†by David Talbot, a deeply depressing
chronicle of how Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles did the dirty work of US
corporations worldwide. The arrogance, impunity, and irresponsibility of these men
established the framework of our secret government, which remains intact to this day.
It would be pleasant to believe that this evil persists because of public ignorance, but
like the good Germans of the Nazi era, Americans accept that deception, torture, and murder
are routinely practiced on our behalf to maintain our high standard of living and to keep us
“safe.†The reverence for the operatives of the US national
security state is evident throughout our popular culture, and that is a damning judgment on
the American people.
Of course the core problems are stationed at the place hardest to get to: right between
our ears. This complicity disease runs deep and wide.
While I often succumb to that same despondency you mentioned, occasionally I interrupt the
doom tape to notice that there’s a lot of people who are paddling hard
toward a new ethos…like the posters here @ NC, for ex.
So today I’m going to indulge in a little happiness. Plant a tree. Do
something good, something durable, something hopeful.
Something that offers no real hope of rent extraction potential.
It was nice being accused of supporting the terrorists because I supported the rule of
law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
WTF do some people think that the Founders wanted an extremely small army, a large
organized militia, and passed the Bill of Rights? It was a reaction to what the British Army
did to them (using much of the same tactics as the current
“justice†system does today.) The ignorance and lack of
thinking is really annoying.
Much of what the British military did was not good. Even now some of it would not be
allowed in a court of law, but I do not recall them being nearly as violent, brutal, or
deadly in their tactics while enforcing the King’s Law as the current
regime or the local police are. That the milder British tactics caused a civil war with in a
decade, and that the people then had less to fear from an occupying army as we do from
“our†police is disturbing to think on.
But wars always come home, don’t they? Faux toughness on the supposed
baddies here with claims of treason and insurrections on protests and riots now that often
would hardly be in the news fifty years ago, so great was the protests and riots happening
then. The cry to use the same tactics that did not work overseas to be used here at home.
“To keep us safe.â€
There’s truth to this, but once the war was really on, British and
Tory/Loyalist brutality had decisive effects on public opinion, putting lots of people into
the Whig/Patriot camp. Tom Paine makes great efforts to publicize British sexual assaults,
looting, and general thugishness as they chase the Continental Army across New Jersey in
1776; the cruelty of backcountry British cavalry officers and Tory rangers in the Carolinas
was legendary as the war reaches its latter phases.
And there was brutality on the other side, too, especially for Loyalist elites who faced a
kind of “social death.†It was a war, after all, as well as a
social revolution. It wasn’t France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, but it was
rough, especially given the small population size.
Except as Engelhardt just pointed out, the national security state does not
“maintain our high standard of livingâ€.
It’s an immense net drain on our standard of living. The only Americans
made well-to-do or wealthy by it are those who are directly involved in supplying contract
goods and services to the system.
I don’t know if Americans “accept†it as
opposed to taking a dim view of being able to affect change.
The levers the average person has to change the behavior of the state is infinitesimal.
Add to that the scope of action and Overton window mediated by the hypernormalized press
ecosystem just means those in power get to act without restraint.
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some
folks†and the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went
to jail, no one was brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated
such crimes got cushy commenter jobs in the media.
Right now, localities can’t even keep their police from regularly
killing citizens.
What does the average person do in the face of such things?
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some folks†and
the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went to jail, no one was
brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated such crimes got cushy
commenter jobs in the media.
No one went to jail. Certainly no one went before the Hague. No bankers went to jail
either. Even during the nutty Reagan administration, people went to jail for financial
shenanigans. Some got long sentences. Hell, the Iran-Contra stuff was at least covered and
people were indicted, even if they all got pardoned. Not anymore. These shenanigans are the
norm and happen right out in the open. I’d imagine some of
it’s been given legal cover. It seems like it’s become
the expected behavior within these circles. To act otherwise â€" to attempt to be
honest, in other words â€" is seen as weak and is mocked as fiercely as a weaker
child on the playground might be.
It’s just a continuing regression. And as you note,
it’s an excellent career builder:
“Looking for a job in mainstream media? Research has shown that
reducing your sense of ethics and morality actually helps you get ahead.â€
Doubtless, Ms. Smith and Ms. Engelhardt have provided a key public service here. And I
speak as a veteran, decorated for service in the War Over Oil (a.k.a. the
“Persian Gulf Warâ€).
Between the vast economic inequality currently raging in our country, the social
stratification enabled by access to colleges and universities accepted as
“eliteâ€, the trashing of Constitutional protections (e.g. the
4th Amendment, now thoroughly eviscerated owing to the “PATRIOT
ACTâ€), and the rampaging rule by “intelligence
agencies†over foreign policy, I see no reason why any father should tell his
children that this is a country worth fighting and dying for. [Think: China] Of course, the
Empire â€" just as Rome did in its dying days â€" will be able to find
enough desperately poor who will take the king’s shilling and don the
uniform.
If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, let them work for a substantive
“peace dividend†for a 2-3 years. Then we can sit down and
talk; I’ll buy the ale.
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a
“voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became
ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to
the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in
remarkable ways.
Because, imo,
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American
life.
Despite having already ‘pledged’ at my Uncles
Invitation, with the Draft’s End, I had great hope my future would see the
great Peace Dividand rather than 9 more Opportunity Conflicts.
Little did that then 21 year old see the brilliance in that Pentagon Strategy.
I Now firmly support a No Exemption Draft for all post HS.
Military Service being only one, and a restricted one, of many counter-balancing options
available for Public Service for that cohort.
This article reminded me of one of the best Congressional Research Service reports that
I’ve read: Instances of Use of United States
Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2020 . Despite being just a list of dates and locations with a
brief description, it comes in at around 50 pages, which I think is a testament to how
important foreign military engagement has been to the growth of the US even before 1945.
Between these foreign wars and the genocidal war against the indigenous people of the
continent I think it’s fair to say this country has been at war since its
founding.
Correct. Even the so called Louisiana Purchase was not really a purchase of land, but a
faux “option†to engage in land treaties with the native
Americans;.the US chose Indian Wars and relocation treaties that have been violated
repeatedly. (This territory is now known as the Red States.)
The rest of the land extending to the west coast was acquired through conquest with the
new nation of Mexico. I guess the only real honest acquisition would be
Seward’s Icebox.
>>I guess the only real honest acquisition would be Seward’s
Icebox.
Alaska has only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years. I would think that
the natives should have some say about who “owns†the land
even though the Russian Empire did say that they did. The reasons sometimes included the use
of guns. As for stealing Mexico’s territory, again that was, and in some
areas still is, inhabited by natives who somehow became under the
“governance†of New Spain or the country of Mexico despite not
being asked about it and often still a majority part of the population in many areas when
Mexico lost control.
Often, Europeans or Americans would show up somewhere, plant a flag, and say that they
claimed or owned the very inhabited land, sometimes with farms and even entire cities. Rather
arrogant, I would say.
I agree. Seward’s Icebox was not empty at time of sale. My
understanding is that Seward thought it was. So faraway, so cold; no one would be living
there, right?
As I’ve commented here many times, it was small pox not small bullets
that allowed the Old World to take the New. There were estimates of 20 million native
Americans living on the land now known as Mexico and the US. 90% were felled by Old World
disease before Custer lost his scalp to the northern Plains Indians. In a fair fight the
Indians would be enforcing the treaties.
It is amazing how the US continues to engage in war and still lose: Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Iraq. . .Ukraine?
For nearly a decade now every time I’ve read about the war in
Afghanistan I’ve thought about Tim Kreider’s mordant
2011 cartoon We
Could’ve Had The Moon, Instead We Get Afghanistan . Ten years later,
that $432 billion has ballooned to $2.3 trillion (and more) and every word he wrote still
stands. :-(
The author has retired from cartooning and now focuses on essay writing.
We are going to have to halt the production lines.
The warehouses are full of bombs already, there is no more room.
Biden to the rescue; he’s started dropping bombs already.
When you have a large defence industry, you need war.
The only purpose is to use up the output from the defence industry.
“The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment
or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on
armamentsâ€
“Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the
armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive
rearmament of other countries.â€
These were the lessons they learnt from the 1930s.
So now, here we are. And how do we create a peaceful world? Refit the US military for a
sustainable world. It will prove to be very useful. We and other advanced nations still have
the advantage for prosperity but we should not abuse it. The whole idea back in 1945 was for
the world to prosper. So I’ll just suggest my usual hack: Get rid of the
profit motive. It’s pure mercantilism. And totally self defeating in a
world seeking sustainability for everyone.
The Manhattan Project was an enormously expensive enterprise with two components
â€" the development of a uranium bomb (Oak Ridge) and a plutonium bomb (Hanford,
WA).
If no bomb had been used, the project would have been considered a waste of time, and
there would have been a congressional investigation. If only one bomb had been used, half the
cost would have been considered a waste.
I’m not saying these were the only reasons for dropping the bombs. The
event was, as they say, “overdetermined.â€
Apologize will come flowing thru today..... You're out of your mind
if you think any of them will apologize for this cause they knew
what they were doing
i got to say i love how when Kayley isn't talking, she has that very
intense look on her face of listening and paying attention of what
others are saying that is so dang cute. Got to love the most beast
press secretary of all times! Im glad to see her on fox semi
regularly now.
Kaley is articulated and concise, on point, because what she says is
the product of her own intellect, not a script well studied (Psaki).
That the core of the difference in my opinion.
@Anonymous that a strong American military and national security posture is the best
guarantor of peace and the survival of our values and civilization.
Stavridis has been at the forefront of the mass slaughter known as the implementation of the
Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel:
From 2002 to 2004, Stavridis commanded Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, conducting combat
operations in the Persian Gulf in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Stavridis "oversaw operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria." In short, this prominent
racketeer is dripping with the blood of hundreds of thousands of the victims.
One of the favourite tropes of the transparent cabal who have seized power in the US and
other captive nations is that the solution to the Palestine/Israel problem is "the path to
peace is through direct negotiations.'
This proposition requires the occupied bartering away their land and amending their
borders, always for the benefit of the illegal occupier. These 'negotiations' are expressly
forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. Every functioning government in the world knows
this.
The alien invaders are under an obligation to simply get out. Every 'agreement' is null
and void.
The New Zealand government and the NZ superannuation fund has recently decided to divest
their investments in Israeli banks citing international law, the Geneva Conventions and
reputation damage as key factors.
It is sheer hypocrisy for the usual suspects to talk about human rights, rules based
international law, democracy and our values, while advocating the opposite policies in the
middle east.
Is it possible they actually believe their own propaganda and their own lies through
Bernays like repartition?
In Washington foreign conflicts are to policymakers what lights are to moths. The desire
to take the U.S. into every political dispute, social collapse, civil war, foreign conflict,
and full-scale war seems to only get stronger as America's failures accumulate.
There may be no better example than the battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the
latter's claim to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, contained within Azerbaijan but largely
populated by ethnic Armenians. Distant from the US and Europe, the struggle matters most to
nearby Georgia, Turkey, Iran, and Russia.
The impact on Americans is minor and indirect at best. Yet there is wailing and gnashing
of teeth in Washington that the US is "absent" from this fight. Send in the bombers! Or at
least the diplomats! Candidate Joe Biden predictably insisted that America should be leading
a peace effort "together with our European partners," without indicating what that would mean
in practice.
The roots of the conflict, like so many others, go back centuries. Control of largely
Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia passed among Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russian
Empire. After the Russian Revolution the two were independent and fought over N-K's status,
before both were absorbed by the Soviet Union. Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic Armenian population
began pressing for transfer to Armenia during the U.S.S.R.'s waning days. After the latter
collapsed in 1992 the two newly independent nations again fought, resulting in tens of
thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees, and Armenia grabbed the disputed
land as well as even larger adjacent territory filled with ethnic Azerbaijanis.
A ceasefire froze the bitter conflict, leaving the conquered territory under Armenian
control. Although Yerevan's gain was tenuous, unrecognized by the rest of the world and
dependent upon a geographic corridor between Armenia and N-K, the government, largely in
response to internal political pressures, grew steadily more aggressive and unwilling to
honor previous commitments. Violent clashes mixed with ineffective talks between the two
states.
With no prospect of resolution, despite long-standing diplomatic efforts through the
so-called Minsk Process, involving America and France, among others, Azerbaijani forces,
relying on Turkey, employing Syrian mercenaries, and utilizing Israeli-made drones, launched
an offensive in September. With Yerevan losing troops and territory, Moscow brokered a new
ceasefire, which required Armenia's withdrawal from areas conquered a quarter century ago.
The transportation corridor is to be policed by Russian peacekeeping forces; Turkish
officials will help monitor the ceasefire.
The result was jubilation in Baku and riots in Yerevan. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol
Pashinyan, under political siege, declared: "This is not a victory, but there is no defeat
until you consider yourself defeated, we will never consider ourselves defeated and this
shall become a new start of an era of our national unity and rebirth." More accurate was
Azerbaijani President Ilham Alyev's assessment: "This [ceasefire] statement constitutes
Armenia's capitulation. This statement puts an end to the years-long occupation. This
statement is our Glorious Victory." With Pashinyan's authority in tatters and Alyev
triumphantly enjoying a surge in popular support, hostilities could easily explode again.
Why would any sane American want to get in the middle of this fight?
Demands that Washington "do something" ignore three important realities. The first is that
the conflict has nothing to do with the US and threatens no serious American interests. The
fighting is tragic, of course, as are similar battles around the world. However, this
volatile region is dominated by Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Iran previously supported Armenia,
Turkey strongly backed Azerbaijan, and Russia has good relations with both, including a
defense treaty with Yerevan which Moscow deemed not to cover contested territory, meaning
N-K.
Which of these powers, all essentially American adversaries – despite Ankara's
continued membership in the transatlantic alliance – dominates which neighbor is a
matter of indifference to Washington. It simply doesn't matter, and certainly isn't worth
fighting over. Once US officials would have preferred Turkey over Iran and Russia, but
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taken his nation in an Islamist and authoritarian
direction, warmed relations with Russia, the only serious target of NATO, and begun
aggressively expanding Turkish influence and control in Syria, Libya, and the eastern
Mediterranean. Ankara encouraged the current military round by enhancing Azerbaijani
capabilities.
Georgia also shares a border with both combatants but is only a bit player in the ongoing
drama. However, it has lobbyists in Washington whose mission is to get Tbilisi into NATO and
thus turn Georgia into another US defense dependent. Doing so would create a direct border
conflict with Russia, made much more dangerous by the volatility of Georgian politics. The
irresponsible and reckless President Mikheil Saakashvili triggered the brief yet disastrous
2008 war with Russia and remains active politically. Tbilisi's dubious role is another reason
for the US to avoid deeper involvement in the region's disputatious politics.
The second point is that there is nothing sensible America for do, despite cacophonous
demands otherwise. In October Washington Post columnist David Ignatius complained:
"The global power vacuum invites mischief. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has
escalated over 10 days of fighting. Armenian leaders initially hoped that US diplomacy could
produce a ceasefire; now they look to Moscow."
Translated, Yerevan wanted Washington to save Armenia from both its original aggression
and later intransigence. Like many other governments have desired in other conflicts. But how
was the US to restrain Azerbaijan, which was able to recover long-lost territory only by
resorting to force? America's regional policy has been a disaster. Washington already
demonstrated its impotence in Ankara as Erdogan charted an independent course. The US turned
a difficult relationship with Moscow into a mini-Cold War. The Trump administration foolishly
declared economic war on Iran, creating regional instability and precluding negotiation.
As for Azerbaijan, military intervention would risk war for no good reason. Economic
sanctions would punish Baku, but to what end? So far, the president's constant resort to
"maximum pressure" has failed to induce political surrender in Havana, Caracas, Damascus,
Pyongyang, or Moscow. Whatever the economic price, Aliyeh could ill afford to retreat and
anger an entire population currently celebrating his triumph. Anyway, the issue is not worth
another failed American attempt at global social engineering. Which means Washington had
nothing to offer but words.
Certainly the US should encourage a peaceful settlement and negotiation, but this is a
conflict for which there is no obvious diplomatic answer. It is easy to insist that Baku
should not have restarted hostilities, but the Alyev government struck because diplomacy had
frozen along with the dispute. And Baku's success dramatically reshaped the balance of power,
leaving Armenia in a far worse position than before. Creative mediation might help, but
Azerbaijan, on offense, showed no interest in such an effort. Nor has Washington demonstrated
the ability to reign in Baku's main backer, Turkey, anywhere else. Washington is filled with
magical thinking, the belief that the president merely need whisper his command and the
entire world will snap to attention. Alas, America long ago lost that ability, if it ever had
it.
Moreover, US officials share some blame: On the presumption that Azerbaijan was committed
to a peaceful settlement, Washington provided it with arms and aid to combat terrorism.
Unfortunately, weaponry, like money, is fungible. And that mistake cannot be unmade.
An equally mistaken belief in the Trump administration's commitment also might have helped
lead Armenia astray. Since taking power in the Velvet Revolution two years ago, Pashinyan
sought to move westward. However, in the present crisis neither America nor Europe did
anything to assist Yerevan – whose occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh remains illegal under
international law. Some US interest groups attempted to turn Armenia into a cause celebre of
religious persecution, but the Muslim-Christian clash is incidental to broader geopolitics
which little concerned the West.
The horrid genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire against ethnic Armenians a century ago
is constantly cited but remains irrelevant to today's conflict. Around three decades ago
Armenia invaded Azerbaijan to seize incontestably Azerbaijani land. Baku struck back for
reasons of nationalism, not religion. The essential irrelevance of religion is reflected in
Christian Russia's good relations with Muslim Azerbaijan, Jewish Israel arming Muslim
Azerbaijan, and Muslim Iran's long backing for Christian Armenia, though these ties ebbed in
the last couple years. The US should no more be a crusading Christian republic than a
crusading republic.
Finally, Russia demonstrated that other powers have an interest in peace and stability and
are able to act. That is a tough lesson for the denizens of Washington to learn, given their
irrational hatred of Russia. Vladimir Putin is no cuddly liberal but most American
policymakers make hypocrisy and sanctimony the foundations of their approach to Moscow. After
all, Putin has killed fewer innocent people than Trump administration's favorite dictator,
Mohammed bin Salman, whose aggression against Yemen has resulted in more than five years of
murder and mayhem and created the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet. Yet Washington
continues to sell Saudi Arabia more weapons and munitions with which to kill more Yemeni
civilians.
Moreover, though Moscow has behaved badly, in Georgia and Ukraine in particular, so has
the US in Russia's eyes. Washington misled Moscow over NATO expansion, dismantled longtime
Russian friend Serbia, pushed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, embraced Tbilisi,
which fired on Russian troops guaranteeing security in neighboring secessionist territory,
encouraged a street putsch against an elected, Russophile government in Kiev, and sought to
push Moscow out of Syria, an ally of nearly 70 years. The expectation of American
policymakers that they can use military force to push the Monroe Doctrine up to Russia's
border without triggering a sharp response is unrealistic at best, deadly at worst.
Of course, the Russia-brokered accord was a clear diplomatic triumph and likely will
solidify Moscow's influence. However, with success has come responsibility, which could prove
costly to Moscow. The accord remains fragile and unstable, and might collapse.
By its nature the agreement is short-term and does not address the fundamental issue, the
status of N-K. Indeed, on its own terms either party, which would most likely be Azerbaijan
in this case, can order the withdrawal of Russian monitors in five years. However, the modus
vivendi might not last even that long. Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev posited: "I hope
that today's ceasefire and our further plans to normalize relations with Armenia, if
perceived positively by the Armenian side, can create a new situation in the region, a
situation of cooperation, a situation of strengthening stability and security." With Yerevan
aflame after angry mobs took over the National Assembly building, severely beat that body's
speaker, trashed the prime minister's home, and forced him into hiding, "positive" probably
is not the right word to describe Armenians' perception of the settlement. In fact, those who
abandoned their homes in territory turned over to Azerbaijan adopted a scorched earth policy,
destroying everything.
Both sides probably view the latest agreement a bit like French Gen. Ferdinand Foch
presciently saw the Versailles Treaty: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years."
Only the N-K time frame might be much shorter. Nevertheless, no one else has offered any
better alternative. Unfortunately, zero-sum disputes over territory are among the most
difficult disputes to resolve. Either Armenia or Azerbaijan will control N-K. Either ethnic
Armenians or Azerbaijanis will live in N-K. Yes, the ideal would be people from both lands to
live together in a democratic state, joining hands around a bonfire to sing Kumbaya every
night. However, no one believes that is even a remote possibility.
With nothing meaningful to offer to solve the current firefight, it was best for
Washington to stay out. In fact, Armenia's old guard, pushed out of power by Pashinyan two
years ago in the Velvet Revolution, blame their nation's defeat on his government's
subsequent turn West, from which it received little support. Brokering the current defeat
would merely have reinforced anger against America.
Russia acted because it has far more at stake. Let it undertake the burden of seeking a
settlement. Let it accept the cost of enforcing a settlement. Let it bear the blame if the
system again crashes.
US policymakers have trouble imagining a world in which a sparrow falls to earth, to
borrow Biblical imagery, without the US responding. If the bird falls in Nagorno-Karabakh, at
least, Americans should allow someone else to pick it up. It is not Washington's purpose to
make every conflict on earth America's own.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
Predictions are tricky matters in world affairs – and as it turns out, prescience
produces little in the way of public or personal vindication. There's scant satisfaction when
one's subjects tend towards the tragic. Take the (for now) paused 44-day war in the South
Caucasus. Back in an October
interview , I offered this (then) seemingly provocative prognosis:
"If this thing gets solved, or put back in the freezer, which is about the best we can
hope for right now, it will be Putin playing King Solomon and cutting the Nagorno-Karabakh
baby in half."
Think Moscow will merit plaudits from mainstream media? After all, four weeks ago, a
U.S.-brokered truce held a whole
few hours !
Snark aside, intellectual merriment loses luster when it amounts to dancing on thousands
of fresh graves filled with family members of the tens of thousands more newly
displaced . Only the implications of the ceasefire's terms – under which Armenian
troops withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh after a 26 years occupation and replaced by Russian
peacekeepers – are also disturbing. The outcome also set potentially long-lasting
precedents.
Make no mistake this was no small victory for the initiator – if not aggressor
– nation of Azerbaijan. That under the agreement , Azeri troops stay
in place within areas of Nagorno-Karabakh they seized in battle, has profound ramifications.
War worked. Furthermore, seven odd weeks of combat proved – once again – that it
often does, at least in certain contexts.
What are those (not-so) special situations, you ask? Easy: be in the esteemed and wealthy
Western camp. Kow-tow diplomatically and play ball economically – especially in energy
sales – with multinational corporations headquartered in North American and European
capitals. Thus, win powerful friends and influence prominent people and nearly anything is
permissible.
Anyway, both people and leaders in Baku – especially the mini-Stalinist Aliyev dynasty running the
family fiefdom – are thrilled with the outcome. Same goes for folks in Ankara, and
madcap Erdogan – the man who would be sultan – himself. Instructively, there's no
less enthusiasm in Tel Aviv – not just by Bibi Netanyahu's dominant rightist ethnocrats .
Because this much you can't make up: pro-Baku rallies and the
waving of Azeri flags in Israel!
Look, Ankara hates their Armenian late genocide victims for surviving to tell the
Turk-indicting tale. Besides, Erdogan is pursuing neo-Ottoman
adventurism region-wide, and more than happy to tap in into ethno-Turkic and co-religionist
solidarity to grease those grandiose wheels. Israel's self-styled Jewish and Democratic
hybrid state support for Shia Islamic majority Azerbaijan seems stranger – unless one's
in the know on the lengthy and sordid ties
between Bibi and Baku.
Not so among Armenians in Yerevan – where protesters stormed the parliament, physically
accosted the speaker and reportedly looted the prime minister's own office. Something tells
me we haven't heard the last of Armenia's army in Nagorno-Karabakh – given the soreness
and inherent instability of losing sides in long-standing and externally-escalated
ethno-religious conflicts.
And here's the troubling rub: if not quite smoking guns there's plenty of smoke
indicating that Turkey – and to a lesser but
significant extent, Israel – conspired with Azerbaijan's petty autocrats to conquer
(or reconquer) Nagorno-Karabakh. The preparatory collusion was years in the making, ramped up
mightily in the months before D-Day – yet unfolded largely under the U.S. and broader
international radar. Consider a cursory recitation of the salient sequence.
Ankara's support for its Azeri Turkic-brethren has grown gradually more overt for years.
So have its long-standing arms-sales to Baku. Then came a decisive pivot – according to
one report , a six-fold jump in weapon's transfers to Azerbaijan over the last year.
Then, this past summer, Turkish troops trained and did joint exercises with Azeri forces.
Consider it a pre-invasion capstone.
Finally – now here's a cute catalyst – Ankara
reportedly moved those implausibly-deniable Syrian mercenaries into Azerbaijan two weeks
before Baku's attack. Don't take my radical word for it, though. Consider the
conclusions of the decidedly establishment-friendly Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace's resident Caucasus expert. Fellow longtime NK-watcher Tom de Waal was as clear as he
was concise:
"It's pretty obvious that Azerbaijan has been preparing for this. Azerbaijan decided it
wanted to change the status quo and that the Armenian side had no interest in a war " and
"Clearly, the decisive factor in this conflict is Turkey's intervention on Azerbaijan's
side. They seem to be heavily coordinating the war effort."
All told, that indirect intervention, coordination, and the combat-
proven capabilities of allied arms sales bonanzas – especially Turkish Bayraktar
TB2 and Israeli kamikaze drones – were decisive. Thousands of Yerevan's troops were
killed, about a third of its tanks were destroyed, and at least 50,000 Armenians have fled in
the face of Azeri gains.
Then, in the eleventh hour breach – as if to force friendly peace terms from Russia
– Turkey
threatened to intervene outright. Just how did big, bad, unhinged and the 10-foot-tall
Putin of Democrat-delusions respond to Erdogan's provocation? Well, he essentially folded
– or settled – in the interest of temporary tranquility in Russia's restive
near-abroad. Recall that Moscow eschewed even much menacing – let alone actual
intervention – on behalf of its official Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Armenian ally.
That this was all so represents nothing less than a paradigm-shifting precedent-setter. Or
at least a reminder of force's forever utility for some. Boost your batch of backers, gather
the tech-savvy arsenal that's thus available, and ready your patron-trained troops for war.
Invade only once the green-light comes from on-external-high, and the "rules-based"
international order that isn't – but is dominated (for now) by Washington
– will avert eyes long enough to enable Nuremberg's "
supreme crime " of armed aggression to work its magic.
So force pays if your government has coveted energy resources, the cash they produce, the
weapons they buy – plus powerful patrons willing to sell you the cutting edge stuff.
Just ask sundry Gulf Arab autocrats! (Though it rarely turns out as well for internal –
especially Shia dissidents or, you know, Yemeni kids).
To take it a step further, maybe your benefactor even tosses in some third-party
mercenaries, trains and advises your army just before game-time, and threatens outright
intervention if your little-bro-government doesn't get it's way. It also helps if your
patron's patron is still a hyper-hegemon that bullies – I mean, "leads" by principled
example – much of the wealthy world into silence or complicity, and looks the other way
long enough for facts on the ground to turn your way. Now there's a formula for force as
solution to frozen conflicts!
No doubt other parties paid attention. Heck, they want in on the violent game-changing
game! Believe you me, there are plenty of neo-fascists, adventurist American "allies," and
frenemies – all in need of a little citizen-distraction from Covid, corruption, and
economic collapse – who are all in for applying the new NK-formula. Ukrainian fascists,
Georgian Euro-aspirants, frightened and ever-opportunist Baltic bros or Taiwanese troops,
Egypt's military coup-artists, Arabian princely theocrats, and no doubt Israel's Bibi bunch
– yea, they all took careful Caucasus-notes.
So where does America's president-elect, Joe Biden, stand on the Russian-brokered truce,
you ask? About as you'd suspect from a fella inside the beltway cult of "collusion." Biden
picked partisan point-scoring over principled consistency. He "
slammed " Trump's supposed slow response to the NK-fighting and accused him of
"delegating the diplomacy to Moscow." In fact, his campaign's initial
statement singled out Moscow's ostensibly "cynical" arms sales to both conflict parties
and failed to name even once the war's Beetlejuice of bellicosity – Turkey.
Never known for nuance, the gut-player-elect failed to couch his rather bold critique with
admissions of US security assistance to both sides, acknowledge the Tel Aviv and Ankara
accelerants, nor the circumscribed options for any administration in an unfrozen conflict in
which Washington has no real "
dog in the fight ." Well, that's strange – seeing as the Russian-led settlement
pushed past achieving one of Biden's publicly
stated goals: to "make clear to Armenia that regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh cannot
be occupied indefinitely."
Well, so it goes with Russia-obsessed Democratic administrations beset with the
clinical -narcissism of American exceptionalism. No matter how distant the conflict, no
matter how far off the citizenry's obscurity-radar: the maelstrom must be about us .
See everything, everywhere , is apparently about US interests, anxieties, and
obsessions. Today's obsessive flavor of the moment – and for most of the century since
Bolshevik Red October – is Moscow.
Therein lies the problem, and what I've been boy-who-cried-wolfing about regarding the
real
risk regarding the coming Democratic administration. That is, after making everything
about Trump and Russia for four years, they might begin believing their own exaggerated
alarmism and follow through with legit escalation and acceleration of theater numero uno of a
dual-front, Eurasia-spanning Cold War encore. If Moscow and Beijing are forever branded bad
boys – in motive and machinations – then on shall continually churn the war
state, with all the pecuniary and professional benefits to both the outgoing Trump team and
incoming
Biden bunch alike.
Few Americans will notice, or bother to bother themselves about it – pandemic
preoccupied and social media distracted as they be – until the fruits of folly flash in
front of their eyes (pun intended).
Forget Condi Rice's farcical foreboding of a mushroom cloud as smoking gun . Even the Bushies'
bald-faced lies rarely reached past Saddam's singular nuclear blasts – Washington and
Moscow might end the world in an afternoon.
So permit me one final prediction: if they do, some staunch US"ally" learned-of the latest
Caucasus-conclusions will be the one to drag us down to oblivion.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer, senior fellow at theCenter for
International Policy(CIP), contributing editor atAntiwar.com, and director of the new Eisenhower Media
Network (EMN). His work has appeared in the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post,
The Hill, Salon, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, Scheer Post and Tom Dispatch,
among other publications. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq
War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the SurgeandPatriotic Dissent: America in
the Age of Endless War. Along with fellow vet Chris "Henri" Henriksen, he co-hosts
the podcast "Fortress on a
Hill." Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVetand on hiswebsitefor media requests
and past publications.
"... It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... The transition has also been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016. ..."
"... The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. ..."
"... That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget, but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head. ..."
"... Obama's deep state lied, people died: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ ..."
"... I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world. ..."
"... The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other. ..."
"... "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." ..."
"... Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state. ..."
Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump
banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and
Asia. Those individuals are generally described as neoconservatives but the label is itself somewhat misleading and they might more
properly be described as liberal warmongers as they are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on most social issues and are
now warming up even more as the new Joe Biden Administration prepares to take office.
To be sure, some neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed
Trump but is now the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran. Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized
that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran as exemplified by the ending of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. John Bolton was also a neocon in the
White House fold, though he is now a frenemy having been fired by the president and written a book.
Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they have been maintaining relevancy by
slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator
from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson. A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is
now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini.
The transition has also
been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed
for the party’s failure in 2016. Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets
have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to U.S. national security
policy. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum are favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at
the New York Times prior to Weiss’s recent resignation.
Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight
talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly
on MSNBC.
The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and
everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia
serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication The Weekly Standard
virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions
of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 trillion. The Israel connection has also resulted
in neocon support for an aggressive policy against Russia due to its involvement in Syria and has led to repeated calls for the U.S.
to attack Iran and destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively sought “democracy promotion,”
which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective.
The neocons are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), that are funded by Jewish billionaires. FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction
coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute,
which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.
The neocon opposition has been sniping against Trump over the past four years but has been biding its time and building new alliances,
waiting for what it has perceived to be an inevitable regime change in Washington.
That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy
agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create
in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland.
Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president
and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by
Trump. His wife Victoria Nuland is perhaps better known. She was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support
to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies
on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget,
but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And, to be sure, beyond regime change in places like Ukraine, President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to starting actual
shooting wars in places like Libya and Syria while also killing people, including American citizens, using drones. Biden appears
poised to inherit many former Obama White House senior officials, who would consider the eager-to-please neoconservatives a comfortable
fit as fellow foot soldiers in the new administration. Foreign policy hawks expected to have senior positions in the Biden Administration
include Antony Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power and, most important of all the hawkish Michele
Flournoy, who has been cited as a possible secretary of defense. And don’t count Hillary Clinton out. Biden is reportedly getting
his briefings on the Middle East from Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who now lives in the Jewish state and is reportedly
working for an Israeli government supported think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nowhere in Biden’s possible foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism
in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to a new cold war with major competitor powers like Russia and
China. In fact, Biden himself appears to embrace an extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with both Moscow and Beijing
“claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language is unrelenting, so much so that it is Donald Trump who
could plausibly be described as the peace candidate in the recently completed election, having said at the Republican National Convention
in August “Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing their dreams and the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs,
opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars, wars that never ended.”
It should be noted that the return of "neocons" does not mean the return of people like Wolfowitz, Ladeen, Feith, Kristol who
are more "straussian" than "liberal/internationalist", but those like Nuland, Rice, Sam Powell, Petraeus, Flournoy, heck even
Hilary Clinton as UN Ambassador who are CFR-type liberal interventionist than pure military hawks such as Bolton or Mike Flynn.
These liberal internationalists, as opposed to straussian neocons, will intervene in collaboration with EU/NATO/QUAD (i.e. multilaterally)
in the name upholding human rights and toppling authoritarianism, rather than for oil, WMDs, or similar concrete objectives. In
very simple terms, the new Biden administration's foreign policy will be none other than the return to "endless wars" for nation-building
purposes first and last.
The name Kagan is the Russianized version of the name Cohen. He was going to be McCain's NSA had he been elected. They pulled
a stunt with the Bush admin to make Obama look weak by pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008. Sakaasvili, the president
of Georgia, was literally eating his own tie:
A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy
goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors
feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head.
I don't think they have that much influence. They pushed a lot of nonsense in the late 70/early 80s about how the Taliban were
George Washingtons and here we are today, they're worst than the Comanche. The last time I saw Richard Perle make a TV appearance,
he was crying like a baby. Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, was a Ron Paul supporter. The only ones really kicking around
are Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, but Kristol was almost alone when he was talking about putting 50,000 boots on the ground
in Syria. Rubin is a harpie who only got crazier and crazier. Kagan had his foot in the door with Hillary only because of his
wife. Those two might get back in with Biden on Ukraine, but Biden would do well to keep them at a distance.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present
in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist
foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world.
It seems now that there is a new breed of neocons, unified by opposition to Trump's messaging, but not much else. Odd to find
people like Samantha Power, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Paul Wolfowitz marching together in perfect step.
A good perspective by Philip Weiss on the same subject. Eliot A Cohen must be communicating a lot with the Kagan brothers ,
Dennis Ross and Perle to see who can be parachuted either to the WH or Foggy Bottom.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology
The revolutionary spirit (see E. Michael Jones' work). From communism to neoconservatism it's ultimately an attack on the Beatitudes
and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. "The works of mercy are the opposite of the works of war" -- Servant of God Dorothy Day
I hold the Cold Warriors like Scoop a species distinct from those of the post-USSR era. The current version started at the
end of the cold war. We felt like kings of the world after Gulf War 1 and the shoe seemed to fit.
The HW Bush administration pondered how best to use this power for good. I've read some things which report there was a debate
within the administration on whether to clean up Yugoslavia or Somalia first. They got Ron to "do the honors" for the invasion
of Somalia at Oxford: About 20 minutes in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/arising-ashes-world-order
That was played as part of the pep-talk on the Juneau off the coast of Somalia. Stirring stuff.
In some small way I never stopped sipping that Kool Aid. It's hard to stand by and watch unspeakable evil go down when you
have the power to stop it...or think you do. Time will tell if the Neocons are capable of perceiving the limits of force. Certainly
had some hard lessons in the last few decades.
Hogs lining up for a spot at the trough? The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other.
I think its generally shocking that Trump or the republicans didn't make a bigger issue of Biden's history of supporting disastrous
intervention, especially his Iraq War vote. Maybe they felt like its not a winning issue, that they would lose as many votes as
they gain by appearing more isolationist. But overall, Trump favoring diplomacy over cruise missiles should have been a bigger point in his favor in the election.
It is distressing to read that we will have people in the government who are looking for a fight. That is especially true in
view of China's aggression in recent years and the responses we will have to make to that. I think we will have more than enough
to do to handle China. What do the neocons want to do about China?
Here is an article about China that really startled me and made me realize how much of a threat is was becoming. The Air Force
chief of staff talks about the challenges of countries trying to compete militarily with us in ways that have not occurred for
awhile. Here are two quotes that really got me:
"Tomorrow's Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat
attrition rates and risks to the nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environments to which
we have since become accustomed," Brown writes."
And
"Wargames and modeling have repeatedly shown that if the Air Force fails to adapt, there will be mission failure, Brown warns.
Rules-based international order may "disintegrate and our national interests will be significantly challenged," according to the
memo."
The article doesn't say we will have another arms race but that is an obvious response to China's competition with us. I thought
all that was done and gone. I do not want to resume it. I don't want another period of foreign entanglements, period. We still
haven't paid for the War Against Terrorism. I look into the future and all I see is us racking up bills that we have no ability
to pay. And then there is the human cost of all this, I don't want to even think about that.
Snouts in the trough accounts for a certain amount of neocons, I'm sure. There is, however, a unifying vision beyond that which
puzzles me, given the very different political orientations of various neocons. Neocons are found in academia and the media as
well. Those types are less dependent on taxpayer dollars in exchange for their views (they'll get whatever tax money gets pushed
their way in grants, etc regardless).
I find Polish Janitor's "straussian" and "liberal/internationalist" flavors of neocon intriguing, as I hadn't considered that
before.
COL Lang's quote from Plato reminds me of another (from Cormac McCarthy): "It makes no difference what men think of war, said
the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The
ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All
that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state.
I concur with your thoughts about standing by as evil occurs. We just have a habit of jumping into complex situations we don't
understand, and making things worse. I suspect you feel the same way.
The military misadventures during my career (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria) were marked by our own black and white
thinking. The more successful adventures (Colombia, Nepal) were marked by our appreciation (to a certain extent) of the complex
nature of the environments we were getting involved in...and the fact that we weren't involved in nation-building in the latter
two locales. There were viable governments in place, and we weren't trying to replace them.
Here is another Biden clip that should have been exploited too - way back when - when the media was a little more trusted,
but no less pompous. However, Biden The Plagerizer had it coming.
Though I am warming more and more to Trump Media becoming the real soul of America. Plus someone, in time. will need to pick
up Rush Limbaugh's empire. America needs a counter-weight to fake news more than it needs the keys to the White House, with all
its entangling webs, palace intrigues, chains and pitfalls.
Godspeed President Trump. If someone with as few talents s Biden can rise like Lazarus, just think what you can do with your
little finger. No wonder the Democrats want Trump destroyed; not just defeated in a re-election. We have your back, Mr President.
Are the people of America up for another arms race and a more or less cold war with China? I think the Chinese will give us
a lot more trouble than the Soviets ever did.
And yet we allow their students to come here and learn all we know and their elites to bring their dirty money here and we
give them green cards and citizenship and protect the money they took from the Chinese people. Not so smart on our part.
What is the next theater of war that Biden's new friends will involve us in? I noticed lots of Cold War era conflicts are heating
up lately, Ethiopia Morocco Armenia being recent examples. IS in Syria/Iraq is still castrated due to the continued mass internment
of their population base in the dozens of camps, but they have established thriving franchises in Africa and their other provinces
continue to smolder.
I agree with all you points PO, rather those complaining about Russia are throwing a bunch
of contradictory self-serving and ultimately emotional accusations and complaints that
very much echo western foreign policy after the Cold War of Do Something, regardless
of how dumb, damaging and even making the situation much worse for those who they supposedly
are claiming to help. DO SOMETHING! My response is 'WTF don't YOU do something
youselves ? Put your body, blood and mind on the line if you really care so much
rather than typing on a keyboard thousands of miles away in great comfort. Keyboard warrior
wankers!
Those actually running the west aren't much different which is why they go for the easy
option of flying above 20,000ft and dropping bombs rather than sending very large numbers of
troops to hold ground and have a quick result. Why? Because they are afraid of bodybags and
how they might look. That is the crux. They're more afraid being turned against by the
electorate so 'easy solutions' that look good but don't deliver are the order of the day.
They just can't stand the real cost or be courageous enough to spell it out to the public
that their words if taken at face value means quite a lot of death. It doesn't sell.
I don't understand the current situation in full context but it seems that Armenian
leadership has whored themselves to Western interest. And the whore-wanabe's pictured above
are eager to sell their souls as well.
Russia's take may be to let Armenia face consequences of that decision to align with the
Western empire. And, it will be up to the Armenian population to remove the leadership that
chose Western allegiance if they so chose.
Russian leadership (showing great wisdom in my opinion) shuns imposition of
the-right-thing-to-do on a population that is too lazy or too fearful or too accommodating of
a whoring leadership. Russia has learned its lesson about helping other nations at great
expense to itself and then expecting gratitude or loyalty. As noted by others, the only
nation to do such has been Serbia.
The above Russian strategy is likely predicated on the belief that the Western empire is
wobbly and nearing the tipping point. Russian leadership appears to have concluded that it
now time to disconnect Russia from the Western economic system to escape the coming
calamity.
MOSCOW, October 31. /TASS/. Moscow will provide all necessary assistance to Yerevan in
accordance with the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the two
countries, if hostilities spill over to Armenia's territory, the Russian Foreign Ministry
said in a statement on Friday.
I am sure word will soon arrive here from Finland about this matter, namely about what
Russia should do but, as a result of its inherent weakness, most certainly will not do.
You may find things different by mid-November, as Armenia has – allegedly –
formally asked for Russian help. Here's a particularly pithy and realistic quote;
"In the modern world, you must either have your own heavily armed army combined with a
strong economy that can support it, or you must be friends with those who have it (here's a
hint, either Russia or China, because we see the results of Pashinyan and Lukashenko's
friendship with Europe and the US online today). The usual liberal mantras of
"Russia-Armenia-Belarus have no enemies" are good exactly as long as you are not attacked in
reality, and not on the Internet or in the media. And no assurances of American and European
friendship will save you. You'll be lucky if they don't take you apart themselves."
Remember when Pashinyan was elected, and the protests which swept him to power? Remind you
of anybody? Poroshenko, maybe? Not to suggest Pashinyan is a powerful oligarch – to all
appearances he is not. But he came to power by the same mechanisms – playing public
naivety like a violin, quoting hopeful citizens who really believe a different face is the
magic bullet which will blow away corruption, and receiving the benevolent blessing of the
west that the election was just as fair as fair could be. It always is, so long as the
western-preferred candidate gets 'elected'.
"Historically, Armenia's elections have been marred by fraud and vote-buying.
However, international observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe said the elections had respected fundamental freedoms and were characterised by
genuine competition."
You'd think that kind of boilerplate would have lost its power to make me laugh, but by
God, it still tickles me; "characterised by genuine competition" – oh, 'pon my word,
yes! You, like others, may have noticed by now that all it takes in certain countries to
eliminate any possibility of 'genuine competition' is advance polls which indicate the
western-disliked incumbent will win easily. That's how the people plan to vote, but that
counts for nothing – it's only 'genuine competition' if there is a realistic
possibility the west's man (or woman) will get in, and the more likely that looks to happen,
damned if the competition does not get more genuine. Nobody seems to notice that the
'competition' reaches the very zenith of 'genuineness' just about the time nobody has a
chance of holding off a landslide win by the preferred candidate.
I think by now everybody who reads here knows how I feel about it; you can't really blame
the west and its media outlets for behaving the way they do. The western countries are mostly
run by wealthy venture capitalists, and what wealthy venture capitalists like best is
acquiring and controlling more wealth. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Even when
western venture capitalists are dead altruistic and benevolent, what they want is for more
wealth and capital to be acquired and controlled by the country to whom they feel the most
sentimental attachment, so that a few of their countrymen might do all right out of their
maneuvering as well – these are the people who come to be regarded as
'philanthropists', like George Soros. But generally they are mostly in it for themselves.
No, what I find the most objectionable is the veneer of holier-than-though goodness which
always covers western exploitation ops. They always have to pretend like a smash-and-grab
crime is some kind of fucking religious moment just because it is they who are doing it, as
if they bring rectitude to even the most blatant self-interest. When the truth of the matter
is that what the powerful do not give even the tiniest trace of a fuck about – Locard
himself could not detect it – is what life is going to be like afterward for the
average citizen in the country targeted for exploitation by changing its leadership. You
know, the ones jumping up and down in Independence Square (there's always an Independence
Square), or walking around with big dumb grins on their faces as if they have just felt the
planet shift under their feet.
It's worth mentioning here that the period during which the west – led, of course,
by the United States and its government/venture-capital institutions – was the most
optimistic about Russia was the moment when it looked like a class of wealthy venture
capitalists was going to take over the running of what was left of the Soviet Union; the
Khodorkovskys and the Berzovskys and the Abramovitches. The wealthy Boyars who, albeit they
spoke a different language, really spoke the same language to the letter as their western
counterparts.
And the official western perspective on Russia made an abrupt turn to the South, and grew
progressively grimmer, the more evident it became that that was not going to happen.
"Venture capitalists" may not be the most accurate terminology for those who run the West.
There are a lot of old power blocks including the Vatican, the British royals, Zionists and
other groups who get along well enough not to openly attack each other but will protect their
particular areas of dominance. Their glue are narcissistic/messianic beliefs of their right
to rule humanity. There may be deeper and murkier layers in the ruling hierarchy. I say
"ruling" but their rule is only to the degree that we do not care enough to resist.
The interesting thing is that these demonic forces are nearly entirely of a Western
origin. Is there a genetic factor that has become concentrated in the ruling elites? Some
other self-propagating driver of their beliefs?
I do believe that Russia and China are sorting and identifying the real actors in the
Western ruling elites.
A very interesting and thought-provoking reply. I think we must be careful to not just
'study it, judiciously as you will', while 'history's actors' reshape reality around us.
It seems to me that whatever the behavior of Armenia, Russia is still expected to
protect/save christians in the region regardless of all the s/t that is thrown at them and
particularly knowing the blood thirsty history of Az/turcoman/whatever behavior against
Armenians.
There is a point here as Russia presents itself as the leader of the Orthodox Christian
world it is its actual duty to rise above (pthe etty nasty s/t) and protect christendom in
the hood regardless
But, and as we all know, the having the cake and eat it crowd has only but expanded, most
notably those who are pro-west. They are owed it and thus they demand it as they are
considered and have been told that they are a cut above the rest. It's the same western
'benefit of the doubt' that allows its intellectuals to support successive foreign policy
adventures that have ended in catastrophic failure but even worse left those that they
pledged to help in a much worse position.
I also think that in this case most people really do not know that Armenia is run by a
pro-western government. It's not exactly hot news. And its still not widely reported let
alone. After all, the western media is not exorciating Washington, Berlin, Paris and London
for doing f/k all to help Armenia. They've been mostly silent. No need to point out yet again
that the west picks and choses which countries/territories to carve up in contravention of
long standing international law, and which others it strictly abides by, in this case
Nagorno-Karabakh.
This may well be in part of being stung by the highly successful and bloodless return of
the Crimea to Russia which was done in line with international law regardless of western
protestations. It really put their carving off Kosovo by extreme violence in an very bad
light by comparison and cannot be denied any longer as 'not a precedent' if they claim Russia
took over Crimea illegally. The West has really tied itself in to a gordian knot at the
international and state level despite doing its best to ignore it at home. The rest of the UN
members don't buy it in the least.
So back to the beginning, who to blame? Russia is the easiest target. Surely not the west
who is also selling weapons to Azerbaidjan, buys its gas and give the dictatorship a free
pass. And even less so i-Sreal selling weapons, another people that has suffered the fate of
genocide. No. Russia has to do something!
And, or, is it also their argument that despite 'Russia not respecting international law'
that in this case it is an 'exception' (but not a 'precedent' (!)) and their failure to do so
is inexcusable? It really is the most gigantic load of bollocks.
Just a few points – Russia's defense of Christendom may be limited to Orthodoxy as
the rest are spinoffs or spinoffs of spinoffs. Christian religious values in the west hardly
resemble core Christian values so why should Russia give a damn about protecting such
Christians? If the Armenia Orthodox church is comfortable with, if not endorsing, LGBT? life
styles, then they would likely be considered as non-Christian. I do not know if the forgoing
is the case; just discussing implications.
Russia will fulfill its obligations to defend Armenia from armed attack. However, once
Azerbaijan has gotten what it wants, there will be no incentive for an attack on Armenia and
especially so considering the dire consequences of a Russian military response.
I remember when my wife asked an old priest here after our youngest's christening into the
ROC if we could get wed in said church. He told her we couldn't because I wasn't a
Christian.
She begged to differ, but he insisted that I was a heretic and would have to baptized
according to ROC rights and after having had ROC catechism lessons.
He was right too and twofold: (i) all "Christian" faiths are heresies, aberrations of the
true, correct liturgy as passed on from the apostles and (ii) I am a heretic of a pagan
nature.
I have a soft spot for pagan beliefs as well. There are nonphysical entities that we
interact, mostly without awareness, on a daily basis. No big deal, we just need to be mindful
of such realities to better understand why things happen the way they do. The Woke folks
could not possibly understand such, being isolated in their hall-of-mirrors tight little
self-contained world of self-importance with the firm conviction that they are the be-all and
end-all. A peasant toiling in the fields or a kid in the slums understand reality better the
the Wokest of the Woke. Am I serious? I don't know.
There's a report the other day that China's massive planting of trees is estimated to soak
up to 35% of the carbon dioxide it produces industrially. The data comes from ground level
station, satellite and other sources.
Which leads me to this question. If farmers (in u-Rope) are now being paid not to grow
food, then wtf not just plant forests of trees that can also be farmed and managed? Is it
because it is too easy and there's not much profit in it?
Trees are central to Germanic paganism. How can one not respect a tree such as the mighty
oak that is at least 500 years old when mature and may live for 1,000 years and more? Such
living things interact with us -- of course, they do, if "only" in the maintainance of an
ecological balance of the gas that is necessary for our existence.
That bastard Charles "the Great" of the Franks waged relentless war for over 30 years
against the Saxons (not the "Anglo-Saxons, but my kinfolk in what is now Lower saxony in
Germany) because of their refusal to accept Christianity.
Too right they didn't, for they knew full that if they had, the would have fallen under
the thrall of the person who styled himself as emperor of the Western Roman Empire that had
fallen into dissolution some 300 years earlier, which reborn "Roman Empire" had as its state
religion Christianity -- Roman Christianity that is, and its emperor, much later styled as
the "Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation", was guess who? That's right, Charles the
Great/Carolus Magnus/ Karl der Grosse/Charlemagne.
One of Charles' favourite tricks in subduing the Saxons was making public spectacles of
hacking down their "holy" trees or " Irminsul . After one victory against rebellious
Saxon pagans whose lands the Franks had invaded, Charles had them all baptised -- then had
them beheaded, all 4,500 of them!
Einhard, Charlemagne's biographer, said on the closing of the conflict:
The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the
terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and
the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and
union with the Franks to form one people.
So the Saxons started eating small pieces of bread that they were to believe was god,
which is far more reasonable than believing that trees and rivers and forests and storms were
worthy of their respect.
Right! I'm off to my holy grove in order to pay my respects to Woden.
Okay, you've baited me (love to spend more time here but I do appreciate the occasional
glance and many great comments and discussions)
"But veneration is inherent in the human breast. Presently mankind, emerging from
intellectual infancy, began to detect absurdity in creation without a Creator, in effects
without causes. As yet, however, they did not dare to throw upon a Single Being the whole
onus of the world of matter, creation, preservation, and destruction. Man, instinctively
impressed by a sense of his own unworthiness, would hopelessly have attempted to conceive the
idea of a purely Spiritual Being, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Awestruck by the admirable phenomena and the stupendous powers of Nature, filled with a
sentiment of individual weakness, he abandoned himself to a flood of superstitious fears, and
prostrated himself before natural objects, inanimate as well as animate. Thus comforted by
the sun and fire, benefited by wind and rain, improved by hero and sage, destroyed by wild
beasts, dispersed by convulsions of Nature, he fell into a rude, degrading, and *cowardly
Fetissism*, the *faith of fear*, and *the transition state from utter savagery to
barbarism*."
• "The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam" by Richard Francis Burton
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He
followed the instructions.
On March 20, 2018, President
Donald Trump
sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said
Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all
of which were crucial to Trump's
2016 election victory
.
"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of
equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You
should have increased it," Trump
said
to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit
scores
of alleged war crimes.
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief
in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961
of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who
regularly
fantasizes
about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president
has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states,
promoted
the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs
in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for
companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own
political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense
industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral
considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest
and even part of his own political message, the deceptive
claim
that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from
Hartung
,
a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense
strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Next month's election
will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off
― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given
the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to
continue
getting richer, as they have in a dramatic
way
under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favorites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department
spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark
Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first
appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections
to military contractors,
per
the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance
of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently
revealed
― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a
Joe Biden
presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies'
profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring
process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors
and other special interests.
"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of
law in the
Trump administration
, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient
now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan
good-government group.
The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last
year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a
rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ―
including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that
Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit
that urged Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo
pushed
out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general
criticized
the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red
Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center
in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged
war crimes.
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the
defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro
pressured
Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared
Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally
spoke
with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies
as part of this year's
coronavirus
relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead,
a Washington Post investigation
showed
.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that
they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility
that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted
that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed
said
it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense
industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose
numbers have also
grown
as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson
announced
she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations
made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate
itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,"
Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending
generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville,
welcomed
Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed
Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given
that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel
Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president
for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."
With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the
health pandemic
dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead
in surveys of most swing states
, his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to
President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase
fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush
announced
the
decisions
at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made
the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest
margin
of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer
margin
than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President
Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12,
2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political
fortunes.
Checking The Receipts
The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments
about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating
to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A
HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations
like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite
defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight
preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions
include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics
shows
that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did
donate
$500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which
noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder
told
ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military
budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year,
per
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has
said
he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security
world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.
And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in
other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's
underway as the Pentagon's inspector general
investigates
how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect
on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International
Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014
― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain
support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents,
Scherb of Common Cause said.
"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics
and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear
overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing
CEO Dave Calhoun
has said
he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election,
arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.
In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do
just fine.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
Jacques Chirac President of France told Jr Bush if the United States finds WMDs in Iraq you
put them there. The CIA and MI6 knew Iraq had no WMDs because Tariq Aziz Saddam's long time
number 2 was a CIA asset. Back in the 1980s Aziz was a regular on the Washington cocktail party
circuit and a frequent guest on CNNs Crossfire with Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak vs Tom Braden
and Michael Kinsley. Finally Dick Armey Republican and House Majority leader was going to vote
against authorizing the war in the fall of 2002. Cheney goes up to Capitol Hill pulls Armey
into the Vice Presidents office in the Capitol and tells him that Iraq is close to having
suitcase nukes and has very close ties to Osama bin Laden. Both lies of course.
On one occasion when Jr Bush was talking to Chirac he told him that the war on terror is
Biblical prophecy. Needless to say Chirac was stunned. Yes the Republican establishment lied
the country into one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history. Almost as bad as
Woodrow Wilson taking us into World war 1 which led to the rise Bolshevik revolution and Nazi
Germany
Vietnam was bad for sure and had a much larger death count, but the region or the
domino theory never materialized. The Middle East has been in chaos ever since our
invasion and occupation of Iraq
Britain created Saudi Arabia? They supported the westernized Hashemites rivals of the
Saud to the hilt. Just one of the many factual errors in a muddle-headed article that seems
to draw its inspiration from the reflexive anti-Americanism of the European loony left.
The Caucasus, like the former Yugoslavia, or India before partition, is made up of many
populations coexisting. When ethno- or religious nationalism rears its ugly head, violence
and ethnic cleansing inevitably ensue. The Armenians prevailed militarily due to
Azerbaijani incompetence, not because of any intrinsic moral righteousness, but the thing
about military gains is they can be reversed when the other side gets its act together,
specially if it enjoys an overwhelming advantage in population and resources.
Foreign powers like Russia, Turkey, Iran, France or Israel are pouring oil on the fires
of revanchism for political or mercantile reasons, instead of pushing both sides to
meaningful negotiations (let's not forget the Armenians are perfectly happy with the status
quo and have not exactly been eager to negotiate it away). The last thing the US should be
doing is taking sides, and since this is Russia's backyard there is not much we can do
other than pressuring Turkey to stop making things worse, but we all know how little real
sway we have with Erdögan.
The article seems to me to be disjointed and I have feeling the damage was done during
editing. There's no egregious mistake is saying the Brits created "Saudi" Arabia. That is a
historical fact and which family/tribe they supported is irrelevant in historical terms.
Your charge of "reflexive anti-Americanism of the European loony left." because of a few
inaccuracies in the article is way off the wall. The article is badly written but it is
informative.
Regarding your claim, "Foreign powers like Russia, Turkey, Iran, France or Israel are
pouring oil on the fires...", I agree with you with the exception of Iran's role in this
mess. The very first official announcement by the IRI, which I posted to another article on
the site, warned Turkey is pouring fuel to the file. There's no disagreement there. Iran
has no military personnel nor funding going to either country. Azerbaijan has about 700
Kilometers of common border with Iran, and Armenia shares about 32 Kilometers of borders
with Iran. Iran has a substantial, vibrant and patriotic Azari population. Many are in top
IRI leadership including Khamenei. Iran also has a very substantial and vibrant Armenian
population. Iran does recognize the Turk's genocide of its Armenian population. Iran is
connected to Armenia via oil and gas pipelines, as well as power grids. Iran is the most
important of energy supplier for Armenia.
A bit of recent history will shed some light on Iran's behavior and attitude towards
each country. While Armenia remained one of Iran's stalwart neighbors, Azerbaijan took the
path of endearing itself to the US and Israel axis of war mongering and destabilizing
policies. This put Azerbaijan on Iran's list of "unfriendly" governments, I'm not talking
about Azerbaijan's Shia population in this context. There's nothing for Iran in this war.
Therefore Iran's latest announcement is to end the war as soon as possible through
diplomatic means. The shells and missiles have started landing on Iranian soil but no
casualties fortunately.
The British had literally nothing to do with the creation of Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Ibn Saud took back his family fief of Riyadh in 1901 from the rival al-Rashid of
Ha'il, then waged war over the other tribes of Arabia, enlisting a fanatical proto-ISIS
like militia called the Ikhwan to conquer in 1924 the British-supported Hejaz ruled by
Sharif Hussein of the Hashemite dynasty. He did not extend his conquests to Yemen, Oman,
Kuwait or Transjordan and Syria because that would have meant waging direct war on the
British and French empires, and in fact had to quell a rebellion of the Ikhwan who wanted
to do exactly that.
The Saudis draw great pride in being the one nation in the Middle East that was not
colonized by Western powers (mostly because it was worthless until the discovery of oil).
Just because William Shakespear or Gertrude Bell toured the region does not make the
al-Saud British puppets like the Hashemites were, whatever their many faults. While
Abdulaziz bided his time and tactically made treaties with the British like temporarily
accepting a protectorate status or agreeing to fight the al-Rashid (like he would do
otherwise, they being his family's hereditary enemies....), they never provided him with
any significant assistance, and in fact tried ineffectually to contain his rise.
I think if we remove "Saudi" from the discussion and just talk about "Arabia" our
difference of opinion will evaporate. The country is mistakenly, in my opinion, was named
"Saudi Arabia" for the Western colonizers' special interest. The rest of your argument
about who did what to whom in Arabia is inside baseball to me.
By the way, stay tuned. We many start hearing about the al-Rashid as soon as the "king"
passes and mBS tries be big cheese of Arabia.
Of course Iran would just like the conflict to go away; its leaving them with only bad
choices, whether that to be appearing to support Azerbaijan and alienating Armenia, with
whom they have an important relationship, or appearing to support Armenia and alienating
much of its local Azeri population. I think Iran publicly is walking a fine line and trying
to stress diplomacy to solve the conflict as much as possible, though its still hard for
them to extricate themselves from the politics of the situation.
Though, in that regard, its a bit wrong to compare the Azeri population in Iran to the
Armenian population; its completely different in scale and importance. Iran has some
concern that the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, if handled wrongly, would become regional or
spill over into their borders, and they're less concerned about Armenia in that part.
Also wrong to not point out that Israel formed ties with Azerbaijan and Iran formed ties
with Armenia around the same time; these were complementary moves, and its just as possible
to explain Israel's ties with Azerbaijan as being as a result of Iran's ties with Armenia,
rather than just the reverse. Just as well, Israel at the time had friendly relations with
Turkey, which have since deteriorated. Its also true that the relationships are based on
reasons independent of those kind of geopolitical moves, and are largely based on
self-interest on both sides. Azerbaijan is also Israel's top oil supplier. Simply blaming
all this on the US and Israel, and making Iran's stance towards Azerbaijan as a result of
them being the victim of these types of deals, is a bit much.
I doesn't seem Iran can or even thinks about extricate herself from "the situation".
Iran is situated right there and whether things spill over to Iran or not will play a big
role in Iran's perception of the regional security.
No sure where I inferred any comparison between the Azari and the Armenian population of
Iran. They are BOTH Iranians. After the breakup of the USSR, the Azerbaijani dictator
Heydar Aliyev established relation with Israel and later the US, while refusing to join any
of the several post-Soviet economic arrangements. That was accompanied by Azerbaijan making
noises about "unification" of Azerbaijan. That pushed Iran to throw all its support behind
Armenia then. The situation has changed and IRI and Azerbaijan have normal relations.
Iran cannot simple afford to consider the Armenian Iranians less "important" than her
Azeri Iranians, if that's where you are going.
The author may have been a banker, but he clearly was neither an historian or diplomat.
He knows neither the details of what he writes, nor does he have a framework.
The decision to assign Karabakh to Azerbaijan was taken in 1921, not 1923 and was taken
by the Bolshevik Caucasus Bureau, not by Stalin. General clashes between Azerbaijanis and
Armenians took place in 1905, and the fighting for Karabakh proper erupted in 1918 with the
formation of independent Armenian and Azerbaijan republics. Both well before the Bolsheviks
or Stalin could do anything about Karabakh (although the Bolsheviks did join with the
Armenian Dashnaks in March 1918 to seize Baku and butcher Azerbaijanis in the process. Yes,
Azerbaijanis retaliated in September, but the Armenians did start it and got their hands
plenty bloody, outside Baku as well).
The author's contempt for Azerbaijanis comes through in his comment that the
Azerbaijanis have lost every time against the Armenians. He never reflects that the
possible reason might be that the Armenians have been both better organized and more
aggressive than the Azerbaijanis. He deliberately leaves out that Armenian expelled 800,000
Azerbaijanis from the territories surrounding Karabakh. He is stunning in his
disingenuousness and ignorance. As for his framework, he has none. Where does he get the
idea that Kosovo and Karabakh are interlinked and that they can be resolved through
tradeoffs? Does he imagine that Muslims are one people and constitute a single union?
Apparently.
An Arab world moving toward Pan-Arabism and socialism in 1924?!
As to the "Armenian settlement area" – the author might reflect on the Kurds'
claims to 90% of that same area, and the bloody history of Kurdish-Armenian relations. If
turning over old borders what do you do about Abkhazia, Circassia, and multiple places in
the Balkans from where Muslims were expelled. Bring Greeks back into Turkey, too, while we
are it? This article was not analysis, but uninformed blathering laced with ethnic
invective. The Armenians have suffered enough to deserve such shoddy argumentation. AmCon
should be ashamed to have run this.
Turkey regularly threatens Europe with opening the gates with their "refugees" as
leverage in negotiations. Erdogan travels to the heart of Europe to encourage the Turkish
diaspora to perpetuate their grudges on European soil and encourage them to flex their
political muscle to further an Islamist agenda. They slaughtered Armenians, Greeks, and
Syriac Christians- never acknowledging the crime or showing remorse. Now they seek to
finish what they started with the Armenian Genocide- and the world sits on its hands
claiming that both sides are equally responsible.
This is outrageous! Turkey has proved time and time again that it is the aggressor,
using threats to get what it wants, and does not behave as an ally. Turkey has
single-handily destabilized entire countries in its dream of Neo-Ottoman domination over
the region. Time to heavily militarize the Greek- Turkish frontier, kick Turkey out of
NATO, and put it on notice that it's adventurism in Libya, Syria, and Armenia will be met
overwhelming force. Feeble responses made by the West will only encourage the mad-dog
Erdogan.
Explains well why Biden spent the other day criticizing the President for not taking a
more active role in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Warmongers gonna warmonger. I assume
that's one of the main attractions for Biden's supporters - more dead women and children in
Asia. They spent eight years driving around with "Support America's Foreign Invasions"
yellow ribbon stickers on their SUVs under the last administration Biden was part of.
With not a new war for nearly four years, I can understand why the establishment and
Democrat voters are pissed. At least the fake "neoconservatives" are back in the party they
belong in.
War mongering is like Herpes. You can suppress it, but it's virus never goes away. Biden
has had it for years. He supported W's war of choice in Iraq, which led to the carnage of
thousands of American 20-somethings, thousands of mental illness sufferers and MILLIONS of
dead Iraqi people of ALL ages. He is an unrepentant old neo-con war criminal.
And I suspect that Azerbaijan will do no harm to the Armenian civilians that stay.
They'll be model liberators. And they'll take time to bring back Azerbaijani civilians
(refugees/IDPs) to their homes, especially in areas that would become mixed as a result of
return."
Agreed, this is rubbish. "Mr. C" – assuming someone like this even exists, is either
terribly misinformed or an outright liar. Basically, if we follow Escobar's logic, Armenian's
are making a mistake by not agreeing to surrender their lives to the peace loving and rather
humanistic dictatorship of Azerbaijan. While he touches on some relevant points, overall,
Escobar has not done his homework and has come up with quite a bit of drivel.
Pepe, you didn't mention the Armenian Genocide, the Greek Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide,
all perpetrated by Turkey.
Why not? Would the Azeris, all Turks, be different? You say the Azeris if they won, Turks,
would treat the Armenian population nicely. Huh?
I remember from Runciman's book on the First Crusade that the Turks had already taken over
much of Anatolia but he seems to mention Armenians at every turn (from memory -- don't have
the book handy).
My impression is that before the Genocide the Armenians were all over Anatolia. There was
a narrow coastal strip at the western end that was historically part of Greece, and many
different peoples of Asia Minor are mentioned in the NT, but they arguably were all
Armenians, making the Armenians the indigenous people of Anatolia.
How is it that Turkey was allowed to keep part of Europe after WWI when they were losers?
And did they keep faith? Is the current St Sophia turmoil the norm of Turkish good faith?
Time for all the Turks to get out of Anatolia, give it back to Armenia, and head for
Azerbigan.
@Yevardian having been disciplined for some years now is, once again, at the throat of
the west. Europe spent millions of lives and huge resources throwing the Moors out last time.
If they don't take a stand and support Armenia they may very well have to do it again. As far
as the mythical Mr C is concerned he comes across, to me, as yet another apologist for the
Religion of Peace. Obviously cucked NATO will not help Armenia, they have neither the
intestinal fortitude nor the will, so it will be left to Russia and the Visigrad nations, in
the mean time Turkey is attempting to take Greek territory, Syrian territory, Libyan
territory and anything else that it can get it's mitts on and the West does absolutely
nothing. This will not end well.
I think few Armenian civilians will take the chance but I very much doubt Azerbaijanis
will be "model liberators". The new Azerbaijani state was born from the Sumgait and Baku
pogroms. I also don't think they will delay in moving Azeris into areas formerly inhabited by
Armenians – their role model Erdoğan has been trying to change facts on the ground
by moving ethnic Turks into Kurdish areas in his own country.
@Ann Nonny Mouse endeavor, even if they were the majority, though most accounts say they
were 40%.
I would strongly urge the Armenians to get off their nationalist high horse and solve the
problem diplomatically and learn to live with their neighbors. Super nationalism is a
dangerous and fake mantra that usually leads to disaster. My understanding was that the
Azeris and Armenians always got along before this debacle. They should try to work out things
and get back to a their original multi-cultural paradigm, that is living side by side instead
of fighting and dying over territory and national flags. Live is short and when we pass to
the other side you dont carry your flag with you.
The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence in 1991: but that was not
recognized by the "international community"
Just to throw in quickly that if Kosovo is "recognized", then bleeding Karabakh should
also long since have been recognized. Especially since the Armenians have an actual holocaust
in their 20th century past.
So, seems like the way to get sympathy to rob territory is to make full use of any
"genocide" one had suffered as excuse . worked very well ( in fact, spectacularly well) so
faR with the Chosen ones .
Well i admittedly dont know enough about the situation to try to critique this piece as
some of the other comments on here But i am skeptical about Armenia and their stated intent.
If it is reallly about protecting an ethnic group – then why not offer them citizenship
to move into your territory??? That would lead me to believe it is more about land and
resources
Yeah i dont know the nitty gritty in this conflict – but i do agree Edrogan seems to
be biting off more than he can chew He has too many pots on the fire it seems. Kurds –
Qatar/Saudis – Libya – Syria – Greece – Cyprus – and now
this..?
Aside from refusing to participate against their Muslim cousins (Afghanistan, Libya),
Turkey is using NATO doctrine quite effectively. It is a useful bullet prove vest for
Erdogan. The Brussels morons will be sorry for not expelling Turkey from their military club
long time ago.
@Ann Nonny Mouse driven to the Syrian desert AFTER some of them had aligned with the
Russians who were about to invade eastern Anatolia in 1915. Similarly, most of Crimean Tatars
were expelled from Crimea AFTER some of them had aligned with the invading Germans in 1941.
As another comparison, American-Japanese living at the Pacific coast were banished to camps
in the interior AFTER the Japanese army had attacked Pearl Harbor and not before.
When a group of people kill or drive out another group it's usually not for the fun of it but
rather due to necessities of survival, whatever evil that might require at that particular
time depending on the particular circumstances.
It would be interesting to read a scholarly exposition on what the USSR and governments in
Eastern Europe proper did or did not do to educate people away from their ancient hatreds,
and why whatever they did do appears not to have been particularly successful. Or was it
mostly successful and the hatreds were much more intense before 1917?
The entire Jewish American lobby and Israel are on Azerbaijan's side and anti-Armenian,
just as when they were working with Turkey to deny the Armenian genocide.
Israel has also sold billions of dollars of weapons to Azerbaijan which the latter is
using against Armenians. Israel gets oil from Azerbaijan
Of course, Azerbaijan and Turkey have imported jihadists from Syria and Libya to fight
Christian Armenians now.
Apparently, Pepe, you and the Jewish lobby, Israel, Turkey, and the jihadists are on the
same side.
Congratulations.
P.S. It would take a hundred pages to list all the factual errors you made. For example,
Armenians were still the clear majority in Artsakh/Karabagh in 1988 and 1991. Armenians there
had been grossly mistreated by Azerbaijan for decades.
The fighting occurred in the late 1980s only because Azerbaijan, backed by the Russian
military, killed and harrassed Armenians. The Azeris also committed massacres of Armenians
who were living in Baku and Sumgait in the late 1980s.
Stalin also placed Nakhichevan, an Armenian territory, inside Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan kicked out every Armenian from Nakhichevan. Azerbaijan was doing that to
Artsakh/Karabagh too.
No wonder Artsakh voted to be independent from Azerbaijan, something you don't want to
understand.
Better luck next time trying to fool readers, Pepe.
The key fact remains that as long as Armenia proper is not attacked by Azerbaijan,
Russia will not apply the CSTO treaty and step in. Erdogan knows this is his red line.
Moscow has all it takes to put him in serious trouble – as in shutting off gas
supplies to Turkey.
Russia isn't going to shut off gas to Turkey. Russia never does that (shutting off gas).
It's a Western canard.
Russia could, however, impose a no-fly-zone over Georgia, effectively blocking resupply
and reinforcements to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is almost completely surrounded by Russian
allies and bases. They rely on Georgia for military transit.
Ignorant post. Armenian nationalist were active in Russia prior to ww1, then supported
Russian entrance into Turkish territory because they shared a religion. They stabbed the
ottomans , of which they were a big part, in the back. The young Turks , who were actually
donmeh jews, had them marched off to Syria and lebanon, etc, causing many deaths! The
Armenian is still causing trouble for the Turks. They sided with the mongols in their battles
against the Muslims, along wit the Georgians, repeatedly. More to a small story
What's going to happen to USA? The poverty and racial intolerance ,both seem to be
undermining the stability and the ideological integrity of the country . I see many states
emerging from the body of America.But the problems will not be resolved . It might just like
like Caucasian territory or Balkan .
1. BTC is described as 'bypassing Iran'. One could easily argue it also bypasses *Russia*
. Perhaps that's what made it necessary for Soros & others to peel Georgia off from
Russian control back in the day? Look how Russia responded by recapturing the Georgian
Military Highway (South Ossetia).
2. Look in general at how Russia is willing to give up huge areas of territory so long as
she keeps key strategic points of control: South Ossetia, Crimea, Transnistria, Abkhazia and
Armenia. Smell the coffee.
3. 2. 'Mr. C' is quick to mention Baku/Ankara joint exercises in August, but fails to
mention Kavkas 2020 exercises led by Russia. Uh duh.
4. 'Mr. C' seems to ignore the fact that Armenia couldn't have taken that territory in
first place, or kept it, w/out Russian assistance. And idea 'Russia can do nothing' is
absurd. As is the idea that Russia can't supply Armenia because there's no land connection.
Did the allies have any problem keeping West Berlin supplied by air? Of course not. All
nonsense.
5. The idea that there is a 'Russia/Turkey' strategic partnership is also silly. Where is
this partnership? Turkey buying S-400s? So what? Are they in partnership in Syria? In Libya?
No. So why would they be in N-K?
6. Weird. No mention of China and it's growing relationship with Turkey. This probably
tells you all you need to know about the author. Unless of course the author is just a fool,
which is also possible.
"Yet even before the collapse the Azerbaijani Army and Armenian independentists were
already at war (1988-1994), which yielded a grim balance of 30,000 dead and roughly a million
wounded."
This is a wounded-to-killed ratio of thirty-three to one. Doesn't make sense.
Were Russia to be as devious and underhanded as the puppet regime in the Di$trict of
Corruption, they would arrange for an overthrow of the present NATO/EU/U$ regime in Yerevan.
With those bastards out of the way and Armenia no longer playing double jeopardy, it might be
possible for a new Orthodox oriented Armenian government to come to some sort of arrangement
with Baku.
At the same time, perhaps Syrian spetsnaz units could practice some infiltration tactics
into Turkish semi-occupied "greater" Idlib and Ghurka style, behead a few Turkish officers
running the show there.
"Sultan" Erdogan is playing loose and wild with his shattering economy and massive
military. It is high time he was given a black-eye–one that would cause him to lose
face among his own countrymen.
This is my educated guess, the Anglo-Zionists led by Rothschild and Netanayahu destablize
the oil in the Middle East to keep their prices of oil in USD above 100 $/barrel
They have also blown up oil derricks in the North Sea, shut down Iranian and Iraq and
Syria oil production. The game is clear, low oil prices are being met with wiping out the
competition.
And causing hell in Iran and Venezueala. Back in 1954 Operation Ajax took out Mossadeq and
installed the Shah – puppet of big oil. Before it was BP it was the Persian Gulf Oil
Co. BP is owned mostly by the crown.
Trump's secretary of state was Rex Tillerson CEO Exxon just like GW Bush picked Condoleeza
Rice CEO Chevron to be his national security advisor.
The Israel angle is to get Iran and to goad Russia into war with the USA, the eventually
goal is that USA-Russia-China are reduced while Jews rule the world from Jerusalem.
How much you wanna bet Bibi Satanyahu has a hand in this war? And Evangelical Christians
will support Israel even if this war kills lots of Armenian Christians just like in
Syria.
Since this war in on Russia's doorstep Putin an Lavrov will try negotiations first then
what will they do next. Putin has vowed the war will never come to Russia which means Russia
will enter the theater on the anti-Zionist side.
Have you noticed every state within a few hundred miles of Israel is being torched and the
natives driven out?
Back again to Pepe Escobar's distortions of reality. Nagorno-Karabakh is an
Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territory. In fact, no country in the world recognises it as an
"Independent" as Escobar likes to mislead us. Armenia should do the right thing and withdraw
its forces, including foreign militants from there. Like Israel, Armenia is playing the role
of a victim of a "holocaust".
Considering that the 2nd largest US/NWO Embassy in the World is in Armenia – a
country of 2.9 million people, and that the new President was put in power by the West
– the end game is to continue to surround Russia, screw up the New Silk Road, and be at
Iran's back door too. As said before , the domestic USA can totally look like the USSR in the
90s, but the NWO Foreign policy money is 100% – guaranteed. What do all those thousands
of workers in that huge Embassy compound do ?
Actually, once the Armenians were genocided , the Jewish bankers were the big shots left
in Turkey. H Morgenthau, our Turkish ambassador along with being jewish himself, wrote about
it in his reports. The Game hasn't changed much – it stays the same. Thanks.
About a third of Iran's population is Azeri. Should they develop interest in the conflict,
Iran may become involved. That would align Turkey and Iran vs Russia. That would be
something.
Damn right. We already have experience what happens when Turks get control of Christian
Armenians – systematic gang rapes and death marches are the rule of the day. Turks are
animals and letting them control any portion of Armenia is basically turning that place into
a concentration camp.
Fact: 1979 was the year that "big oil" LEGAL contracts were to expire and the "puppet"
Shah had threatened as early as 1973 (when he was instrumental in making OPEC a powerful
entity) that in 1979 Iran "would sell Iranian Oil to any buyer, at market prices".
Fact: Iran, in 1978 produced 6 million barrels per day. It has never been permitted to
reach those levels again.
Fact: Chinese, Indian, Syrian, Venezuelan, and God knows who else, all projects of the
Global Cabal have been getting Iranian Oil (under their engineered boxing of Iranian nation)
at levels that very likely are equal if not LOWER than the terms the Qajar idiots gave the
insatiablely greedy and slimey English.
And you did not mention that the only quarters of Smyrna/Izmir that were not torched in a
fire in 1922 were the Jewish and Turkish quarters – what a surprise! An antecedent to
9/11. Here is the Jewpedia hiding the real story – as usual.
The Armenian and Greek quarters were destroyed and the Jews got a monopoly on the
commerce. Done deal!
If the "colour revolution" assumptions were in force, there would be a host of
denunciations of Azerbaijan and Turkey (the latter perhaps the real prime mover in this) by
the USA and EU etc. There aren't. The USA and EU may even tacitly support the Azerbaijanis,
perhaps they hope the Russians and Iranians will become entangled in this affair and so
forth.
How about swapping Nagorno-Karabakh for North Cyprus. I am sure the Greeks would be very
happy to live with the Armenians. But the Sultan's dreams of owning the Eastern Mediterranean
would come to naught.
Stalin did nasty things like that to keep the republics feuding with each other rather
than pushing back against Moscow. The mixed-up borders of the 'stans, further east, are
testament to this. Fergana Valley?
Divide and rule. Still costing lives in pointless wars almost 100 years later.
At stake is the very existence of the Armenian people. Turkey is trying to finish what
remains of them after the genocide last century. Both Erdoghan and Aliev have stated, that
they want a "final solution" to the "Armenian problem".
Exactly. The history of Turkey since 1880-s is full of ethnic cleansings and genocides of
the non-muslim people such as Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.
My thanks to Escobar for taking on a subject rather obviously not susceptible to 2,700
word essays, along with attention worthy links.
His biases are not my own but he's thoughtful and certainly doesn't hide them.
In this and so many other incidents we can see how thoroughly Trump has moved the American
ship of state despite the relentless efforts of foreign and domestic resistance to neutralize
America First and destroy him.
It's really quite something the way Obama's presidency in all its disastrous fullness has
been memory-holed. The defense of it being that it merely extended Bush's world-historical
incompetence and malefactions.
Could you have turned US unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
Warsaw Pact into a "moment" if you tried? I couldn't.
You will be way ahead of most everyone if you get your mind around that and the
geopolitical sad story that is CCP China winning the post-Cold War quarter-century hands
down.
We inevitably come back to the point that the whole drama can be interpreted from the
perspective of a NATO geopolitical hit against Russia – according to quite a few
analyses circulating at the Duma.
Ukraine is an absolute black hole. There's the Belarus impasse. Covid-19. The Navalny
circus. The "threat" to Nord Stream-2.
To pull Russia back into the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama means turning Moscow's attention
towards the Caucasus . . .
I confess that I get no end of enjoyment over bellyaching on behalf of those powers the
Obama administration was turning the world over to. Nord Stream II was merely the down
payment on Russia's assistance/acquiescence in throwing the electron to Hillary, with the sky
the limit for China, Russia and Iran once Democrats and their foreign allies had neutralized
free and fair elections.
Now all of these powers must deal with a real POTUS who asks "What have you done for the
US lately?"
The USG and Russia have cooperated where geopolitical interests align. More will follow
once Trump takes the oath again. As I've explained previously, despite its high-risk position
in the Resistance matrix, Russia/Putin have (unsurprisingly, to me) acted skillfully and with
circumspection.
The same cannot be said for Iran. Nor China, particularly since the end of last year.
The aggravation of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh has raised a number of questions. In
particular, why Moscow is in no hurry to stand up for Armenia and why it does not sharply
criticize
Azerbaijan. The answer is that Moscow and Baku have very close relations, and not only
economic relations. So what is the value and irreplaceability of Azerbaijan for
Russia?
Border and population changes are in order. A quarter of N-K goes back to Azerbaijan and
the rest closer to Armenia proper plus the capital city goes to Armenia with a 50 mile wide
band connecting it with the rest of Armenia. The Azeris get the rest of their lands now
occupied by the Armenians. Will it happen? Probably not, just look at Kosovo..
There is a province between Ngorno Karabakh and Armenia proper of roughly of the same size
belonging to Azerbaijan, so why not just exchange it with each other to avoid further
conflict and bloodshed?
There is no guarantee that Turkey will not try to then eliminate whatever remains of
Armenia.
Remember, Turkey genocided Armenians and wiped out close to 80% of them in 1915 through
1922. Armenian populated areas stretched from what is now Armenia until the shores of Eastern
Mediterranean. The only thing that is left of it is Kessab in modern day Syria.
@Ghali nial borders are fake, false and fraudulent, whether in Asia or Africa. Over time,
justice will prevail and borders will reflect the ethno-national composition of its long-term
inhabitants.
That said, the current regime in Yerevan needs to be overthrown, as it was established in
conjunction with the interests of the Cabal/Nato and their various puppet regimes. Armenia is
the oldest Orthodox Christian nation in the world and was severely genocided by the Donmeh
covert Jewish Masons who called themselves the "Young Turks" who were led by Enver Pasha.
By the way, who are you, Ghali? Do you have a dog in the fight? Are you connected with an
intel agency?
Excellent article, normally I pass over Pepe for the naughty articles on Unz but I might
have to take another look.
My only critique is that the article feels pro-Azeri but that's balanced with an
informative description how this started in July, including an accurate appraisal of Turkish
behavior.
I'm not Azeri or Armenian so I didn't have a dog in this fight until I noticed Israel's
support for Azerbaijan. It's nothing personal, I have only one hate.
Jewish Bankers shifting profits to other Jewish bankers. Funding all sides and profiting
from the mass graves again. 5000 years and nothing has changed.
The Turks are the US Army in this – with their proxy armies sent to help the
Azerbaijanis, just like the US Army /Israelis and their proxies Isis, al Nusra, al Qaeda etc.
in Syria. The US and their 6000 employees at the Embassy, don't have to say anything –
they back both sides – just like the Zionists do – in the US political parties.
Things don't change , Tactics don't change. Thanks.
You are asking him if he has a dog in this fight? What about yourself? You very clearly
have a dog in this fight yourself, haven`t you?
Try to cut down on the hypocrasy, why don`t you, and at the same time maybe moderate your
"holier than thou" attitude.
"... "the EU and Russia find common cause to limit Azerbaijani gains (in large part because Erdogan is no one's favorite guy, not just because of this but because of the Eastern Med, Syria, Libya)." ..."
"... "Iran favors Armenia, which is counter-intuitive at first sight. So the Iranians may help the Russians out (funneling supplies), but on the other hand they have a good relationship with Turkey, especially in the oil and gas smuggling business. And if they get too overt in their support, Trump has a casus belli to get involved and the Europeans may not like to end up on the same side as the Russians and the Iranians. It just looks bad. And the Europeans hate to look bad." ..."
It's important to remember that there was no "Azerbaijan" nation-state until the early
1920s. Historically, Azerbaijan is a territory in northern Iran. Azeris are very well
integrated within the Islamic Republic. So the Republic of Azerbaijan actually borrowed its
name from their Iranian neighbors. In ancient history, the territory of the new 20
th century republic was known as Atropatene, and Aturpakatan before the advent of
Islam.
How the equation changed
Baku's main argument is that Armenia is blocking a contiguous Azerbaijani nation, as a look
in the map shows us that southwest Azerbaijan is de facto split all the way to the Iranian
border.
And that plunges us necessarily into deep background. To clarify matters, there could not be
a more reliable guide than a top Caucasus think tank expert who shared his analysis with me by
email, but is insistent on "no attribution". Let's call him Mr. C.
Mr. C notes that, "for decades, the equation remained the same and the variables in the
equation remained the same, more or less. This was the case notwithstanding the fact that
Armenia is an unstable democracy in transition and Azerbaijan had much more continuity at the
top."
We should all be aware that "Azerbaijan lost territory right at the beginning of the
restoration of its statehood, when it was basically a failed state run by armchair nationalist
amateurs [before Heydar Aliyev, Ilham's father, came to power]. And Armenia was a mess, too but
less so when you take into consideration that it had strong Russian support and Azerbaijan had
no one. Back in the day, Turkey was still a secular state with a military that looked West and
took its NATO membership seriously. Since then, Azerbaijan has built up its economy and
increased its population. So it kept getting stronger. But its military was still
underperforming."
That slowly started to change in 2020: "Basically, in the past few months you've seen
incremental increases in the intensity of near daily ceasefire violations (the near-daily
violations are nothing new: they've been going on for years). So this blew up in July and there
was a shooting war for a few days. Then everyone calmed down again."
All this time, something important was developing in the background: Armenian Prime Minister
Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in May 2018, and Aliyev started to talk: "The Azerbaijani
side thought this indicated Armenia was ready for compromise (this all started when Armenia had
a sort of revolution, with the new PM coming in with a popular mandate to clean house
domestically). For whatever reason, it ended up not happening."
What happened in fact was the July shooting war.
Don't forget Pipelineistan
Armenian PM Pashinyan could be described as a liberal globalist. The majority of his
political team is pro-NATO. Pashinyan went all guns blazing against former Armenian President
(1998- 2008) Robert Kocharian, who before that happened to be, crucially, the de facto
President of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Kocharian, who spent years in Russia and is close to President Putin, was charged with a
nebulous attempt at "overthrowing the constitutional order". Pashinyan tried to land him in
jail. But even more crucial is the fact that Pashinyan refused to follow a plan elaborated by
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to finally settle the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh mess.
In the current fog of war, things are even messier. Mr. C stresses two points: "First,
Armenia asked for CSTO protection and got bitch slapped, hard and in public; second, Armenia
threatened to bomb the oil and gas pipelines in Azerbaijan (there are several, they all run
parallel, and they supply not just Georgia and Turkey but now the Balkans and Italy). With
regards to the latter, Azerbaijan basically said: if you do that, we'll bomb your nuclear
reactor."
The Pipelineistan angle is indeed crucial: for years I have followed on Asia Times
these myriad, interlocking oil and gas soap operas, especially the BTC (Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan),
conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski to bypass Iran. I was even "arrested" by a BP 4X4 when I was
tracking the pipeline on a parallel side road out of the massive Sangachal terminal: that
proved British Petroleum was in practice the real boss, not the Azerbaijani government.
In sum, now we have reached the point where, according to Mr. C,
"Armenia's saber rattling got more aggressive." Reasons, on the Armenian side, seem to be
mostly domestic: terrible handling of Covid-19 (in contrast to Azerbaijan), and the dire state
of the economy. So, says Mr. C, we came to a toxic concourse of circumstances: Armenia
deflected from its problems by being tough on Azerbaijan, while Azerbaijan just had had
enough.
It's always about Turkey
Anyway one looks at the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama, the key destabilizing factor is now
Turkey.
Mr. C notes how, "throughout the summer, the quality of the Turkish-Azerbaijani military
exercises increased (both prior to July events and subsequently). The Azerbaijani military got
a lot better. Also, since the fourth quarter of 2019 the President of Azerbaijan has been
getting rid of the (perceived) pro-Russian elements in positions of power." See, for instance,
here
.
There's no way to confirm it either with Moscow or Ankara, but Mr. C advances what President
Erdogan may have told the Russians: "We'll go into Armenia directly if a) Azerbaijan starts to
lose, b) Russia goes in or accepts CSTO to be invoked or something along those lines, or c)
Armenia goes after the pipelines. All are reasonable red lines for the Turks, especially when
you factor in the fact that they don't like the Armenians very much and that they consider the
Azerbaijanis brothers."
It's crucial to remember that in August, Baku and Ankara held two weeks of joint air and
land military exercises. Baku has bought advanced drones from both Turkey and Israel. There's
no smokin' gun, at least not yet, but Ankara may have hired up
to 4,000 Salafi-jihadis in Syria to fight -- wait for it -- in favor of Shi'ite-majority
Azerbaijan, proving once again that "jihadism" is all about making a quick buck.
The United Armenian Information Center, as well as the Kurdish Afrin Post, have stated that
Ankara opened two recruitment centers -- in Afrin schools -- for mercenaries. Apparently this
has been a quite popular move because Ankara slashed salaries for Syrian mercenaries shipped to
Libya.
There's an extra angle that is deeply worrying not only for Russia but also for Central
Asia. According to the former Foreign Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ambassador Extraordinary
Arman Melikyan, mercenaries using Azeri IDs issued in Baku may be able to infiltrate Dagestan
and Chechnya and, via the Caspian, reach Atyrau in Kazakhstan, from where they can easily reach
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
That's the ultimate nightmare of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) -- shared by
Russia, China and the Central Asian "stans": a jihadi land -- and (Caspian) sea -- bridge from
the Caucasus all the way to Central Asia, and even Xinjiang.
What's the point of this war?
So what happens next? A nearly insurmountable impasse, as Mr. C outlines it:
1. "The peace talks are going nowhere because Armenia is refusing to budge (to withdraw from
occupying Nagorno-Karabakh plus 7 surrounding regions in phases or all at once, with the usual
guarantees for civilians, even settlers -- note that when they went in in the early 1990s they
cleansed those lands of literally all Azerbaijanis, something like between 700,000 and 1
million people)."
2. Aliyev was under the impression that Pashinyan "was willing to compromise and began
preparing his people and then looked like someone with egg on his face when it didn't
happen."
3. "Turkey has made it crystal clear it will support Azerbaijan unconditionally, and has
matched those words with deeds."
4. "In such circumstances, Russia got outplayed -- in the sense that they had been able to
play off Armenia against Azerbaijan and vice versa, quite successfully, helping to mediate
talks that went nowhere, preserving the status quo that effectively favored Armenia."
And that brings us to the crucial question. What's the point of this war?
Mr. C: "It is either to conquer as much as possible before the "international community" [in
this case, the UNSC] calls for / demands a ceasefire or to do so as an impetus for re-starting
talks that actually lead to progress. In either scenario, Azerbaijan will end up with gains and
Armenia with losses. How much and under what circumstances (the status and question of
Nagorno-Karabakh is distinct from the status and question of the Armenian occupied territories
around Nagorno-Karabakh) is unknown: i.e. on the field of battle or the negotiating table or a
combo of both. However this turns out, at a minimum Azerbaijan will get to keep what it
liberated in battle. This will be the new starting point. And I suspect that Azerbaijan will do
no harm to the Armenian civilians that stay. They'll be model liberators. And they'll take time
to bring back Azerbaijani civilians (refugees/IDPs) to their homes, especially in areas that
would become mixed as a result of return."
So what can Moscow do under these circumstances? Not much,
"except to go into Azerbaijan proper, which they won't do (there's no land border between
Russia and Armenia; so although Russia has a military base in Armenia with one or more thousand
troops, they can't just supply Armenia with guns and troops at will, given the geography)."
Crucially, Moscow privileges the strategic partnership with Armenia -- which is a member of
the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) -- while meticulously monitoring each and every NATO-member
Turkey's movement: after all, they are already in opposing sides in both Libya and Syria.
So, to put it mildly, Moscow is walking on a geopolitical razor's edge. Russia needs to
exercise restraint and invest in a carefully calibrated balancing act between Armenia and
Azerbaijan; must preserve the Russia-Turkey strategic partnership; and must be alert to all,
possible US Divide and Rule tactics.
Inside Erdogan's war
So in the end this would be yet another Erdogan war?
The inescapable Follow the Money analysis would tells us, yes. The Turkish economy is an
absolute mess, with high inflation and a depreciating currency. Baku has a wealth of oil-gas
funds that could become readily available -- adding to Ankara's dream of turning Turkey also
into an energy supplier.
Mr. C adds that anchoring Turkey in Azerbaijan would lead to "the creation of full-fledged
Turkish military bases and the inclusion of Azerbaijan in the Turkish orbit of influence (the
"two countries -- one nation" thesis, in which Turkey assumes supremacy) within the framework
of neo-Ottomanism and Turkey's leadership in the Turkic-speaking world."
Add to it the all-important NATO angle. Mr. C essentially sees it as Erdogan, enabled by
Washington, about to make a NATO push to the east while establishing that immensely dangerous
jihadi channel into Russia: "This is no local adventure by Erdogan. I understand that
Azerbaijan is largely Shi'ite Islam and that will complicate things but not render his
adventure impossible."
This totally ties in with a notorious RAND
report that explicitly details how "the United States could try to induce Armenia to break
with Russia" and "encourage Armenia to move fully into the NATO orbit."
It's beyond obvious that Moscow is observing all these variables with extreme care. That is
reflected, for instance, in how irrepressible Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova,
earlier this week, has packaged a very serious diplomatic warning: "The downing of an Armenian
SU-25 by a Turkish F-16, as claimed by the Ministry of Defense in Armenia, seems to complicate
the situation, as Moscow, based on the Tashkent treaty, is obligated to offer military
assistance to Armenia".
It's no wonder both Baku and Yerevan got the message and are firmly denying anything
happened.
The key fact remains that as long as Armenia proper is not attacked by Azerbaijan, Russia
will not apply the CSTO treaty and step in. Erdogan knows this is his red line. Moscow has all
it takes to put him in serious trouble -- as in shutting off gas supplies to Turkey. Moscow,
meanwhile, will keep helping Yerevan with intel and hardware -- flown in from Iran. Diplomacy
rules -- and the ultimate target is yet another ceasefire.
Pulling Russia back in
Mr. C advances the strong possibility -- and I have heard echoes from Brussels -- that
"the EU and Russia find common cause to limit Azerbaijani gains (in large part because
Erdogan is no one's favorite guy, not just because of this but because of the Eastern Med,
Syria, Libya)."
That brings to the forefront the renewed importance of the UNSC in imposing a ceasefire.
Washington's role at the moment is quite intriguing. Of course, Trump has more important things
to do at the moment. Moreover, the Armenian diaspora in the US swings drastically
pro-Democrat.
Then, to round it all up, there's the all-important Iran-Armenia relationship. Here
is a forceful attempt to put it in perspective.
As Mr. C stresses, "Iran favors Armenia, which is counter-intuitive at first sight. So
the Iranians may help the Russians out (funneling supplies), but on the other hand they have
a good relationship with Turkey, especially in the oil and gas smuggling business. And if
they get too overt in their support, Trump has a casus belli to get involved and the
Europeans may not like to end up on the same side as the Russians and the Iranians. It just
looks bad. And the Europeans hate to look bad."
We inevitably come back to the point that the whole drama can be interpreted from the
perspective of a NATO geopolitical hit against Russia -- according to quite a few analyses
circulating at the Duma.
Ukraine is an absolute black hole. There's the Belarus impasse. Covid-19. The Navalny
circus. The "threat" to Nord Stream-2.
To pull Russia back into the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama means turning Moscow's attention
towards the Caucasus so there's more Turkish freedom of action in other theaters -- in the
Eastern Mediterranean versus Greece, in Syria, in Libya. Ankara -- foolishly -- is engaged in
simultaneous wars on several fronts, and with virtually no allies.
What this means is that even more than NATO, monopolizing Russia's attention in the Caucasus
most of all may be profitable for Erdogan himself. As Mr. C stresses, "in this situation, the
Nagorno-Karabakh leverage/'trump card' in the hands of Turkey would be useful for negotiations
with Russia."
And I suspect that Azerbaijan will do no harm to the Armenian civilians that stay.
They’ll be model liberators. And they’ll take time to bring back Azerbaijani
civilians (refugees/IDPs) to their homes, especially in areas that would become mixed as a
result of return.”
Agreed, this is rubbish. “Mr. C” – assuming someone like this even
exists, is either terribly misinformed or an outright liar. Basically, if we follow
Escobar’s logic, Armenian’s are making a mistake by not agreeing to surrender
their lives to the peace loving and rather humanistic dictatorship of Azerbaijan. While he
touches on some relevant points, overall, Escobar has not done his homework and has come up
with quite a bit of drivel.
Pepe, you didn’t mention the Armenian Genocide, the Greek Genocide, the Assyrian
Genocide, all perpetrated by Turkey.
Why not? Would the Azeris, all Turks, be different? You say the Azeris if they won, Turks,
would treat the Armenian population nicely. Huh?
I remember from Runciman’s book on the First Crusade that the Turks had already
taken over much of Anatolia but he seems to mention Armenians at every turn (from
memory—don’t have the book handy).
My impression is that before the Genocide the Armenians were all over Anatolia. There was
a narrow coastal strip at the western end that was historically part of Greece, and many
different peoples of Asia Minor are mentioned in the NT, but they arguably were all
Armenians, making the Armenians the indigenous people of Anatolia.
How is it that Turkey was allowed to keep part of Europe after WWI when they were losers?
And did they keep faith? Is the current St Sophia turmoil the norm of Turkish good faith?
Time for all the Turks to get out of Anatolia, give it back to Armenia, and head for
Azerbigan.
@Yevardian having been disciplined for some years now is, once again, at the throat of
the west. Europe spent millions of lives and huge resources throwing the Moors out last time.
If they don’t take a stand and support Armenia they may very well have to do it again.
As far as the mythical Mr C is concerned he comes across, to me, as yet another apologist for
the Religion of Peace. Obviously cucked NATO will not help Armenia, they have neither the
intestinal fortitude nor the will, so it will be left to Russia and the Visigrad nations, in
the mean time Turkey is attempting to take Greek territory, Syrian territory, Libyan
territory and anything else that it can get it’s mitts on and the West does absolutely
nothing. This will not end well.
I think few Armenian civilians will take the chance but I very much doubt Azerbaijanis
will be “model liberators”. The new Azerbaijani state was born from the Sumgait
and Baku pogroms. I also don’t think they will delay in moving Azeris into areas
formerly inhabited by Armenians – their role model Erdoğan has been trying to
change facts on the ground by moving ethnic Turks into Kurdish areas in his own country.
@Ann Nonny Mouse deavor, even if they were the majority, though most accounts say they
were 40%.
I would strongly urge the Armenians to get off their nationalist high horse and solve the
problem diplomatically and learn to live with their neighbors. Super nationalism is a
dangerous and fake mantra that usually leads to disaster. My understanding was that the
Azeris and Armenians always got along before this debacle. They should try to work out things
and get back to a their original multi-cultural paradigm, that is living side by side instead
of fighting and dying over territory and national flags. Live is short and when we pass to
the other side you dont carry your flag with you.
The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence in 1991: but that was not
recognized by the “international community”
Just to throw in quickly that if Kosovo is “recognized”, then bleeding
Karabakh should also long since have been recognized. Especially since the Armenians have an
actual holocaust in their 20th century past.
So, seems like the way to get sympathy to rob territory is to make full use of any
“genocide” one had suffered as excuse…. worked very well ( in fact,
spectacularly well) so faR with the Chosen ones….
Well i admittedly dont know enough about the situation to try to critique this piece as
some of the other comments on here… But i am skeptical about Armenia and their stated
intent. If it is reallly about protecting an ethnic group – then why not offer them
citizenship to move into your territory??? That would lead me to believe it is more about
land and resources…
Yeah i dont know the nitty gritty in this conflict – but i do agree Edrogan seems to
be biting off more than he can chew… He has too many pots on the fire it seems. Kurds
– Qatar/Saudis – Libya – Syria – Greece – Cyprus – and
now this..?
Aside from refusing to participate against their Muslim cousins (Afghanistan, Libya),
Turkey is using NATO doctrine quite effectively. It is a useful bullet prove vest for
Erdogan. The Brussels morons will be sorry for not expelling Turkey from their military club
long time ago.
@Ann Nonny Mouse iven to the Syrian desert AFTER some of them had aligned with the
Russians who were about to invade eastern Anatolia in 1915. Similarly, most of Crimean Tatars
were expelled from Crimea AFTER some of them had aligned with the invading Germans in 1941.
As another comparison, American-Japanese living at the Pacific coast were banished to camps
in the interior AFTER the Japanese army had attacked Pearl Harbor and not before.
When a group of people kill or drive out another group it’s usually not for the fun of
it but rather due to necessities of survival, whatever evil that might require at that
particular time depending on the particular circumstances.
It would be interesting to read a scholarly exposition on what the USSR and governments in
Eastern Europe proper did or did not do to educate people away from their ancient hatreds,
and why whatever they did do appears not to have been particularly successful. Or was it
mostly successful and the hatreds were much more intense before 1917?
The entire Jewish American lobby and Israel are on Azerbaijan’s side and
anti-Armenian, just as when they were working with Turkey to deny the Armenian genocide.
Israel has also sold billions of dollars of weapons to Azerbaijan which the latter is
using against Armenians. Israel gets oil from Azerbaijan
Of course, Azerbaijan and Turkey have imported jihadists from Syria and Libya to fight
Christian Armenians now.
Apparently, Pepe, you and the Jewish lobby, Israel, Turkey, and the jihadists are on the
same side.
Congratulations.
P.S. It would take a hundred pages to list all the factual errors you made. For example,
Armenians were still the clear majority in Artsakh/Karabagh in 1988 and 1991. Armenians there
had been grossly mistreated by Azerbaijan for decades.
The fighting occurred in the late 1980s only because Azerbaijan, backed by the Russian
military, killed and harrassed Armenians. The Azeris also committed massacres of Armenians
who were living in Baku and Sumgait in the late 1980s.
Stalin also placed Nakhichevan, an Armenian territory, inside Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan kicked out every Armenian from Nakhichevan. Azerbaijan was doing that to
Artsakh/Karabagh too.
No wonder Artsakh voted to be independent from Azerbaijan, something you don’t want
to understand.
Better luck next time trying to fool readers, Pepe.
The key fact remains that as long as Armenia proper is not attacked by Azerbaijan,
Russia will not apply the CSTO treaty and step in. Erdogan knows this is his red line.
Moscow has all it takes to put him in serious trouble – as in shutting off gas
supplies to Turkey.
Russia isn’t going to shut off gas to Turkey. Russia never does that (shutting off
gas). It’s a Western canard.
Russia could, however, impose a no-fly-zone over Georgia, effectively blocking resupply
and reinforcements to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is almost completely surrounded by Russian
allies and bases. They rely on Georgia for military transit.
Ignorant post. Armenian nationalist were active in Russia prior to ww1, then supported
Russian entrance into Turkish territory because they shared a religion. They stabbed the
ottomans , of which they were a big part, in the back. The young Turks , who were actually
donmeh jews, had them marched off to Syria and lebanon, etc, causing many deaths! The
Armenian is still causing trouble for the Turks. They sided with the mongols in their battles
against the Muslims, along wit the Georgians, repeatedly. More to a small story
What’s going to happen to USA? The poverty and racial intolerance ,both seem to be
undermining the stability and the ideological integrity of the country . I see many states
emerging from the body of America.But the problems will not be resolved . It might just like
like Caucasian territory or Balkan .
1. BTC is described as ‘bypassing Iran’. One could easily argue it also
bypasses *Russia* . Perhaps that’s what made it necessary for Soros & others to
peel Georgia off from Russian control back in the day? Look how Russia responded by
recapturing the Georgian Military Highway (South Ossetia).
2. Look in general at how Russia is willing to give up huge areas of territory so long as
she keeps key strategic points of control: South Ossetia, Crimea, Transnistria, Abkhazia
and… Armenia. Smell the coffee.
3. 2. ‘Mr. C’ is quick to mention Baku/Ankara joint exercises in August, but
fails to mention Kavkas 2020 exercises led by Russia. Uh duh.
4. ‘Mr. C’ seems to ignore the fact that Armenia couldn’t have taken
that territory in first place, or kept it, w/out Russian assistance. And idea ‘Russia
can do nothing’ is absurd. As is the idea that Russia can’t supply Armenia
because there’s no land connection. Did the allies have any problem keeping West Berlin
supplied by air? Of course not. All nonsense.
5. The idea that there is a ‘Russia/Turkey’ strategic partnership is also
silly. Where is this partnership? Turkey buying S-400s? So what? Are they in partnership in
Syria? In Libya? No. So why would they be in N-K?
6. Weird. No mention of China and it’s growing relationship with Turkey. This
probably tells you all you need to know about the author. Unless of course the author is just
a fool, which is also possible.
“Yet even before the collapse the Azerbaijani Army and Armenian independentists were
already at war (1988-1994), which yielded a grim balance of 30,000 dead and roughly a million
wounded.”
This is a wounded-to-killed ratio of thirty-three to one. Doesn’t make sense.
Were Russia to be as devious and underhanded as the puppet regime in the Di$trict of
Corruption, they would arrange for an overthrow of the present NATO/EU/U$ regime in Yerevan.
With those bastards out of the way and Armenia no longer playing double jeopardy, it might be
possible for a new Orthodox oriented Armenian government to come to some sort of arrangement
with Baku.
At the same time, perhaps Syrian spetsnaz units could practice some infiltration tactics
into Turkish semi-occupied “greater” Idlib and Ghurka style, behead a few Turkish
officers running the show there.
“Sultan” Erdogan is playing loose and wild with his shattering economy and
massive military. It is high time he was given a black-eye–one that would cause him to
lose face among his own countrymen.
This is my educated guess, the Anglo-Zionists led by Rothschild and Netanayahu destablize
the oil in the Middle East to keep their prices of oil in USD above 100 $/barrel
They have also blown up oil derricks in the North Sea, shut down Iranian and Iraq and
Syria oil production. The game is clear, low oil prices are being met with wiping out the
competition.
And causing hell in Iran and Venezueala. Back in 1954 Operation Ajax took out Mossadeq and
installed the Shah – puppet of big oil. Before it was BP it was the Persian Gulf Oil
Co. BP is owned mostly by the crown.
Trump’s secretary of state was Rex Tillerson CEO Exxon just like GW Bush picked
Condoleeza Rice CEO Chevron to be his national security advisor.
The Israel angle is to get Iran and to goad Russia into war with the USA, the eventually
goal is that USA-Russia-China are reduced while Jews rule the world from Jerusalem.
How much you wanna bet Bibi Satanyahu has a hand in this war? And Evangelical Christians
will support Israel even if this war kills lots of Armenian Christians just like in
Syria.
Since this war in on Russia’s doorstep Putin an Lavrov will try negotiations first
then what will they do next. Putin has vowed the war will never come to Russia which means
Russia will enter the theater on the anti-Zionist side.
Have you noticed every state within a few hundred miles of Israel is being torched and the
natives driven out?
Back again to Pepe Escobar’s distortions of reality. Nagorno-Karabakh is an
Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territory. In fact, no country in the world recognises it as an
“Independent” as Escobar likes to mislead us. Armenia should do the right thing
and withdraw its forces, including foreign militants from there. Like Israel, Armenia is
playing the role of a victim of a “holocaust”.
Considering that the 2nd largest US/NWO Embassy in the World is in Armenia – a
country of 2.9 million people, and that the new President was put in power by the West
– the end game is to continue to surround Russia, screw up the New Silk Road, and be at
Iran’s back door too. As said before , the domestic USA can totally look like the USSR
in the 90s, but the NWO Foreign policy money is 100% – guaranteed. What do all those
thousands of workers in that huge Embassy compound do ?
Actually, once the Armenians were genocided , the Jewish bankers were the big shots left
in Turkey. H Morgenthau, our Turkish ambassador along with being jewish himself, wrote about
it in his reports. The Game hasn’t changed much – it stays the same. Thanks.
About a third of Iran’s population is Azeri. Should they develop interest in the
conflict, Iran may become involved. That would align Turkey and Iran vs Russia. That would be
something.
Damn right. We already have experience what happens when Turks get control of Christian
Armenians – systematic gang rapes and death marches are the rule of the day. Turks are
animals and letting them control any portion of Armenia is basically turning that place into
a concentration camp.
Fact: 1979 was the year that “big oil” LEGAL contracts were to expire and the
“puppet” Shah had threatened as early as 1973 (when he was instrumental in making
OPEC a powerful entity) that in 1979 Iran “would sell Iranian Oil to any buyer, at
market prices”.
Fact: Iran, in 1978 produced 6 million barrels per day. It has never been permitted to
reach those levels again.
Fact: Chinese, Indian, Syrian, Venezuelan, and God knows who else, all projects of the
Global Cabal have been getting Iranian Oil (under their engineered boxing of Iranian nation)
at levels that very likely are equal if not LOWER than the terms the Qajar idiots gave the
insatiablely greedy and slimey English.
And you did not mention that the only quarters of Smyrna/Izmir that were not torched in a
fire in 1922 were the Jewish and Turkish quarters – what a surprise! An antecedent to
9/11. Here is the Jewpedia hiding the real story – as usual.
The Armenian and Greek quarters were destroyed and the Jews got a monopoly on the
commerce. Done deal!
If the “colour revolution” assumptions were in force, there would be a host of
denunciations of Azerbaijan and Turkey (the latter perhaps the real prime mover in this) by
the USA and EU etc. There aren’t. The USA and EU may even tacitly support the
Azerbaijanis, perhaps they hope the Russians and Iranians will become entangled in this
affair and so forth.
How about swapping Nagorno-Karabakh for North Cyprus. I am sure the Greeks would be very
happy to live with the Armenians. But the Sultan’s dreams of owning the Eastern
Mediterranean would come to naught.
Stalin did nasty things like that to keep the republics feuding with each other rather
than pushing back against Moscow. The mixed-up borders of the ‘stans, further east, are
testament to this. Fergana Valley?
Divide and rule. Still costing lives in pointless wars almost 100 years later.
At stake is the very existence of the Armenian people. Turkey is trying to finish what
remains of them after the genocide last century. Both Erdoghan and Aliev have stated, that
they want a “final solution” to the “Armenian problem”.
Exactly. The history of Turkey since 1880-s is full of ethnic cleansings and genocides of
the non-muslim people such as Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.
My thanks to Escobar for taking on a subject rather obviously not susceptible to 2,700
word essays, along with attention worthy links.
His biases are not my own but he’s thoughtful and certainly doesn’t hide
them.
In this and so many other incidents we can see how thoroughly Trump has moved the American
ship of state despite the relentless efforts of foreign and domestic resistance to neutralize
America First and destroy him.
It’s really quite something the way Obama’s presidency in all its disastrous
fullness has been memory-holed. The defense of it being that it merely extended Bush’s
world-historical incompetence and malefactions.
Could you have turned US unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
Warsaw Pact into a “moment” if you tried? I couldn’t.
You will be way ahead of most everyone if you get your mind around that and the
geopolitical sad story that is CCP China winning the post-Cold War quarter-century hands
down.
We inevitably come back to the point that the whole drama can be interpreted from the
perspective of a NATO geopolitical hit against Russia – according to quite a few
analyses circulating at the Duma.
Ukraine is an absolute black hole. There’s the Belarus impasse. Covid-19. The
Navalny circus. The “threat” to Nord Stream-2.
To pull Russia back into the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama means turning Moscow’s
attention towards the Caucasus . . .
I confess that I get no end of enjoyment over bellyaching on behalf of those powers the
Obama administration was turning the world over to. Nord Stream II was merely the down
payment on Russia’s assistance/acquiescence in throwing the electron to Hillary, with
the sky the limit for China, Russia and Iran once Democrats and their foreign allies had
neutralized free and fair elections.
Now all of these powers must deal with a real POTUS who asks “What have you done for
the US lately?”
The USG and Russia have cooperated where geopolitical interests align. More will follow
once Trump takes the oath again. As I’ve explained previously, despite its high-risk
position in the Resistance matrix, Russia/Putin have (unsurprisingly, to me) acted skillfully
and with circumspection.
The same cannot be said for Iran. Nor China, particularly since the end of last year.
The aggravation of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh has raised a number of questions. In
particular, why Moscow is in no hurry to stand up for Armenia and why it does not sharply
criticize
Azerbaijan. The answer is that Moscow and Baku have very close relations, and not only
economic relations. So what is the value and irreplaceability of Azerbaijan for
Russia?
Border and population changes are in order. A quarter of N-K goes back to Azerbaijan and
the rest closer to Armenia proper plus the capital city goes to Armenia with a 50 mile wide
band connecting it with the rest of Armenia. The Azeris get the rest of their lands now
occupied by the Armenians. Will it happen? Probably not, just look at Kosovo..
There is a province between Ngorno Karabakh and Armenia proper of roughly of the same size
belonging to Azerbaijan, so why not just exchange it with each other to avoid further
conflict and bloodshed?
There is no guarantee that Turkey will not try to then eliminate whatever remains of
Armenia.
Remember, Turkey genocided Armenians and wiped out close to 80% of them in 1915 through
1922. Armenian populated areas stretched from what is now Armenia until the shores of Eastern
Mediterranean. The only thing that is left of it is Kessab in modern day Syria.
@Ghali e fake, false and fraudulent, whether in Asia or Africa. Over time, justice will
prevail and borders will reflect the ethno-national composition of its long-term inhabitants.
That said, the current regime in Yerevan needs to be overthrown, as it was established in
conjunction with the interests of the Cabal/Nato and their various puppet regimes. Armenia is
the oldest Orthodox Christian nation in the world and was severely genocided by the Donmeh
covert Jewish Masons who called themselves the “Young Turks” who were led by
Enver Pasha.
By the way, who are you, Ghali? Do you have a dog in the fight? Are you connected with an
intel agency?
Excellent article, normally I pass over Pepe for the naughty articles on Unz but I might
have to take another look.
My only critique is that the article feels pro-Azeri but that’s balanced with an
informative description how this started in July, including an accurate appraisal of Turkish
behavior.
I’m not Azeri or Armenian so I didn’t have a dog in this fight until I noticed
Israel’s support for Azerbaijan. It’s nothing personal, I have only one hate.
Jewish Bankers shifting profits to other Jewish bankers. Funding all sides and profiting
from the mass graves again. 5000 years and nothing has changed.
The Turks are the US Army in this – with their proxy armies sent to help the
Azerbaijanis, just like the US Army /Israelis and their proxies Isis, al Nusra, al Qaeda etc.
in Syria. The US and their 6000 employees at the Embassy, don’t have to say anything
– they back both sides – just like the Zionists do – in the US political
parties. Things don’t change , Tactics don’t change. Thanks.
You are asking him if he has a dog in this fight? What about yourself? You very clearly
have a dog in this fight yourself, haven`t you?
Try to cut down on the hypocrasy, why don`t you, and at the same time maybe moderate your
“holier than thou” attitude.
The highlands of Nagorno-Karabakh are ethnically Armenian. The light blue districts were
originally Azeri but have been ethically cleansed during the war in the early 1990s.
Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan by supplying it with Turkish drones and with 'moderate Syrian
rebel' mercenaries
from Syrian and Libya . All are flown in through Georgian air space. Other mercenaries seem
to come from
Afghanistan . Additional hardware comes by road also through
Georgia. Another supporter of the attacker is Israel. During the last week Azerbaijani military
transport aircraft have flown at least six times to Israel to then return with additional
Israeli suicide drones on board. These Harop drones have been widely used in attacks on
Armenian positions. An Israeli made LORA short range ballistic missile was used by Azerbaijan
to
attack a bridge that connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. Allegedly there are also
Turkish flown F-16 fighter planes in Azerbaijan.
Turkey seems to direct the drones and fighter planes in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh
through AWACS type air control planes that fly circles at the Turkish-Armenian border.
The attack plan Azerbaijan had in mind when it launched the war foresaw to take several
miles deep zones per day. It has not survived the first day of battle. Azerbaijan started the
attack without significant artillery preparation. The ground attack was only supported by drone
strikes on Armenian tanks, artillery and air defense positions. But the defensive lines held by
Armenian infantry were not damaged by the drones. The dug in Armenian infantry could use its
anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons to full extend. Azerbaijani tanks and infantry were
slaughtered when they tried to break into the lines. Both sides had significant casualties but
overall the frontlines did not move.
The war seems already to be at a stalemate. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan can afford to use
air power and ballistic missiles purchased from Russia without Russian consent.
The drone attacks were for a while quite successful. A number of old air defense systems
were
destroyed before the Armenians became wiser with camouflaging them. The Azerbaijani's than
used a trick to unveil hidden air defense positions. Radio controlled Antonov
AN-2 airplanes, propeller driven relicts from the late 1940s, were sent over Armenian
positions. When the air defense then launched a missile against them a loitering suicide drone
was immediately dropped onto the firing position .
That seems to have worked for a day or two but by now such drone attacks have been become
rare. Dozens of drones were shut down before they could hit a target and Azerbaijan seems to be
running out of them. A bizarre music video the
Azerbaijanis posted showed four trucks each
carrying nine drones. It may have had several hundreds of those drones but likely less than one
thousand. Israel is currently under a strict pandemic lockdown. Resupply of drones will be an
issue. Azerbaijan has since brought up more heavy artillery but it seems to primarily use it to
hit towns and cities, not the front lines where it would be more useful.
It is not clear who is commanding the Azerbaijani troops. There days ago the Chief of the
General Staff of Azerbaijan was fired after he
complained about too much Turkish influence on the war. That has not helped. Two larger ground
attacks launched by Azerbaijan earlier today were also unsuccessful. The Armenians are
currently counter attacking.
In our last piece on the war we pointed
to U.S. plans to 'overextend Russia' by creating trouble in the Caucasus just as it is now
happening. Fort Russnotes
:
The current director of the CIA, Gina Haspel , was doing field assignments in Turkey in
the early stages of her career, she reportedly speaks Turkish, and she has history of
serving as a
station chief in Baku, Azerbaijan , in the late 1990s. It is, therefore, presumable that
she still has connections with the local government and business elites.
The current Chief of the MI6, Richard Moore , also has history of working in Turkey -- he
was performing tasks for the British intelligence there in the late 1980s and the early
1990s. Moore is fluent in Turkish and he also
served as the British Ambassador to Turkey from 2014 to 2017.
The intelligence chiefs of the two most powerful countries in the Anglosphere are
turkologists with connections in Turkey and Azerbaijan. It would be reasonable to assume that
a regional conflict of such magnitude happening now, on their watch, is far from being a mere
coincidence.
Before President Trump stopped the program the CIA had used the Azerbaijani Silk Way
Airlines in more than 350
flights to bring weapons from Bulgaria to Turkey to then hand them to 'Syrian rebels'.
Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, is not only a CIA station but also a Mossad center for waging
its silent war against Iran.
I have never perceived it that way. While Armenia's current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan
tried to get into business with 'western' powers and NATO there was no way he could
fundamentally change Armenia's foreign policy. A hundred years ago Turkey, with the second
biggest NATO army, had genocided Armenians. They have never forgotten that. The relation to
Azerbaijan were also certain to continue to be hostile. That will only change if the two
countries again come under some larger empire. Armenia depends on Russian arms support just as
much as Azerbaijan does. (Azerbaijan has more money and pays more for its Russian weapons which
allows Russia to subsidize the ones it sells to Armenia.)
After Nikol Pashinyan was installed and tried to turn 'west' Russia did the same as it did
in Belarus when President Lukashenko started to make deals with the 'west'. It set back and
waited until the 'west' betrayed its new partners. That has happened in Belarus a few weeks
ago. The U.S. launched a color revolution against Lukashenko and he had nowhere to turn to
but to Russia . Now Armenia is under attack by NATO supported forces and can not hope for
help from anywhere but Russia.
Iran likewise did not fear the new government in Yerevan. It was concerned over Pashinyan's
recent diplomatic exchanges with Israel which were at the initiative of the White House. But
that concern has now been lifted. To protest against Israel's recent sale of weapon to
Azerbaijan Armenia has called back its
ambassador from Israel just two weeks after it opened its embassy there.
Pashinyan will have to apologize in Moscow before Russia will come to his help. As Maxim
Suchkov relays :
This is interesting: Evgeniy "Putin's chef" Prigozhin gives short interview to state his
"personal opinion" on Nagorno-Karabakh. Some takeaways:
- Karabakh is Azerbaijan's territory
- Russia has no legal grounds to conduct military activity in Karabakh
- there are more American NGOs in Armenia than national military units
- PM Pashinyan is to blame
- until 2018 Russia was able to ensure ARM & AZ discuss conflict at the negotiation
table, then US brought Pashinyan to power in Yerevan and he feels he's a king & can't
talk to Aliyev
I wonder if Prigozhin's remarks suggest he'd be reluctant to deploy his Wagner guys to
Armenia, if needed or if he is asked to do so, or he's just indeed stating his own views or
it's a way to delicately allude to Pashinyan that Moscow not happy with him ... ?
Russia's (and Iran's) interest is to refreeze the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. But that
requires compliant people on both sides. It therefore does not mind that Azerbaijan currently
creates some pressure on Pashinyan. But it can not allow Azerbaijan to make a significant
victory. One of its main concern will be to get Turkey out of the game and that will require
support for Armenia. Iran has a quite similar strategy.
The U.S. will probably try to escalate the situation and to make it more complicate for Russia.
It is likely silently telling Turkey to increase its involvement in the war.
Russia will likely only intervene if either side makes some significant territorial gains.
Unless that happens it will likely allow the war to continue in the hope that
it will burn out :
The upcoming winter conditions, coupled with the harsh terrain, will limit large-scale
military operations. Also, the crippled economies of both Azerbaijan and Armenia will not
allow them to maintain a prolonged conventional military confrontation.
Posted by b on October 3, 2020 at 17:28 UTC |
Permalink
thanks b....informative... another proxy war is how this looks to me with all the usual
suspects involved... they couldn't get what they wanted in syria, so now onto this...
The war started the day after negotiations between Russia and Turkey over Syria and maybe
Libya also failed. Now the Azeri military complains about too much Turkish involvement which
can only mean one thing--complaining about taking orders from Turks. So this looks like a
Turkish aggression against Moscow? Meant to make a point about Syria? Libya?
In fact, most of your links are propaganda from both sides. We really have no idea what is
going on on the ground.
In fact, most of your links are propaganda from both sides. We really have no idea what is
going on on the ground.
Azerbaijan's position is justified, given that Armenia illegally occupies Azeri territory.
The failure here is on the OSCE group for not being able or willing to resolve the conflict.
Azerbaijan has a right to regain its territory by force, if necessary.
Russia may very well allow Azerbaijan to retake its territory, if it can, but draw a red
line as to entering Armenia proper. The Current Armenian government is hardly a friend of
Russia.
@ Blue Dotterel | Oct 3 2020 18:17 utc | 4... do you feel the same way about crimea and
ukraine taking it back? curious... you live in turkey if i am not mistaken.. are you
turkish??
In a rare move, the Defense Ministry suspended the export license of an Israeli drone
manufacturer to Azerbaijan in light of claims that the company attempted to bomb the Armenian
military on the Azeris behalf during a demonstration of one of its "suicide" unmanned aerial
vehicles last month.
The two Israelis operating the two Orbiter 1K drones during the test refused to carry out the
attack, Two higher ranking members of the Aeronautics Defense Systems delegation in Baku
then attempted to carry out the Azerbaijani request , but, lacking the necessary
experience, ended up missing their targets.
Last year, Azerbaijan used another Israeli suicide drone, an Israeli Aerospace Industries
Harop-model, in an attack on a bus that killed seven Armenians.
Last year, the country's president, Ilham Aliyev, revealed Azerbaijan had purchased some $5
billion worth of weapons and defense systems from Israel.
My citizenship is the same as yours. No one recognizes Nagorno Karabagh independence, not
even Armenia.
Bulent Ecevit, two time PM of Turkey, leftist and a poet, suggested the logical solution
to the problem years ago. He suggested that Armenia cede land along the Armenian/Iran border
of similar size so that Azerbaijan could unite with its southern territory Nakhchivan, thus
Nagorno Karabagh could be exchanged for this territory. Both sides would be winners one
assumes.
Apparently, no one liked the idea despite its fairness. I assume the Azeris in NK would
have to be exchanged with the Armenians in the corridor in a population exchange for this to
be realized.
"The war started the day after negotiations between Russia and Turkey over Syria and maybe
Libya also failed"
More than a week before start of the war, everyone involved in the region politics knew the
war is imminent. Two days before the start of war Zarif rushed to Moscow.
This bastard of Prigozhin goes where the money flows.
And the money flows from Baku.
Do not give much credit to this thug.
Or perhaps Crimea belongs to Ukraine?
"Bulent Ecevit, two time PM of Turkey, leftist and a poet, suggested the logical
solution to the problem years ago. He suggested that Armenia cede land along the
Armenian/Iran border of similar size so that Azerbaijan could unite with its southern
territory Nakhchivan, thus Nagorno Karabagh could be exchanged for this territory. Both sides
would be winners one assumes.
Apparently, no one liked the idea despite its fairness. I assume the Azeris in NK would
have to be exchanged with the Armenians in the corridor in a population exchange for this to
be realized."
That reads like a reasonable solution. Too bad it wasn't embraced.
b "The highlands of Nagorno-Karabakh are ethnically Armenian."? Nagorno Kharbakh is
internationally recognized Azerbaijan territory
Pashinyan's placement in Armenia was meant to give an advantage to those that 'brung him'
Your claims to the otherwise are some kind of pretzel logic.
Georgia absolutely flat out denied any passage of 'rebels' through their territory. That
claim is utter unsubstantiated rubbish.
"have never perceived it that way. While Armenia's current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan
tried to get into business with 'western' powers and NATO there was no way he could
fundamentally change Armenia's foreign policy"
Why because you say he couldn't? The one constant is change.
While it is not a solution as such, I fully agree with b's last point about Russia and Iran
preferring to 'refreeze' the game and remove Turkey from the board.
Since the kick off I have wondered to what extent this is an Azerbaijani initiative and to
what extent a Turkish one.
Either way, as I posted on the open thread, Lavrov and Cavusoglu agreed a couple of days
ago that a ceasefire was necessary and Russia reiterated its strong stance against the
presence of foreign militias in the conflict. Let's hope sober heads prevail. As Rouhani
stated very clearly, the region can not withstand another war.
Sorry, didn't really answer your question. Kosovo, N. Cyprus, Crimea (annexation) and NK
independence are all regarded as illegal accoding to international law, as far as, I know.
None have had a proper UN sponsored referendum.
Although Turkish N. Cyprus did vote to reunite with Greek S. Cyrprus in a UN referendum, but
the Greek Cypriots nixed it, and were immediately admitted to the EU as a prize for their
pigheadedness.
Is it any wonder that Turks don't trust the Christian West or East? Neither the Grek
Cypriots or the Armenians have any incentive nor desire to negotiate in good faith because
the US, Europe and Russia are unwilling to compel them to, but reward them instead with
territorial freezes that benefit them.
The ethnic Muslim Turks in both cases get screwed because of the racist propaganda
directed at them through the ages.
Wow, Blue Dotterel, the hatred for Armenians runs deep in you. Nakhichevan was handed over to
Azerbaijan by the Soviets even before Karabakh/Artsakh was. Then the ethnic cleansing of its
majority Armenian population and destruction of ancient Armenian monuments began so there
would be little trace of its pedigree. Armenia has been chipped away at and betrayed by their
so-called betters generation upon generation. They are not budging nor should they.
You can buy as many weapons as you want, if your soldiers don't know how to fight it's not
going to help. Whether you get 4000 Syrian rebels or 40,000 to Azerbaijan it still won't help
them. If Azerbaijan could take those lands they wound have done it without asking Russia's
permission. Even with advanced weapons they stand no chance. Armenians are using mostly
antiquated and cheap air defense tech to shoot down the most advanced and expensive drones in
the world. Thousands of their troops got slaughtered And hundreds of tanks destroyed so they
could get one village that no one needs ? Wow great results. If they continue with these
results for 2 more weeks they are going to need a brand new army. One thing Azeris have
difficulty understanding is that in real life Might makes Right. Armenians learned this
lesson back in 1914 when they got slaughtered and no one cared, not even the Christian west
or orthodox Russia. Azeris just need to learn to leave with defeat and shame. And Azeris
don't understand how bizarre and funny their army music videos look outside Azerbaijan. Same
thing with Armenian videos. Not sure why both sides think there is a need to glorify war
which creates grief and misery.
What makes you think I hate Armenians? I grew up with many Armenian friends and
acquaintences in my home country. Even in Turkey, I have worked with Armenians (Turkish
citizens, of course) and even had and Armenian (from Armenia) cleaning women for my flat.
I certainly do think Armenians have had poor to incompetent, even racist leaders. Sort of
like the US recently. Indeed, both countries have even had a similar Covid19
mismanagement.
No, I have no problem with Armenians, any more than I do with USAians or any other
peoples.
You state "the ethnic cleansing of its majority Armenian population" with out any context,
but you do realise that Armenians are quite capable of and certainly committted ethnic
cleansing themselves. From the Pepe Escobar article: https://thesaker.is/whats-at-stake-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-chessboard/
"The peace talks are going nowhere because Armenia is refusing to budge (to withdraw from
occupying Nagorno-Karabakh plus 7 surrounding regions in phases or all at once, with the
usual guarantees for civilians, even settlers – note that when they went in in the
early 1990s they cleansed those lands of literally all Azerbaijanis, something like between
700,000 and 1 million people)."
So, fact, the Armenians ethnically cleansed some 700,000 to 1 million Azeris from the
Azeri lands they now occupy including NK.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, is commonplace in war time,
and even in peace time.
To make countries eligible to become part of the NATO the west first they would need to be
cleansed going through a western inspired and planed color revolution. Russian resistance
formula to prevent these countries joining NATO is to make these countries an economic,
political and military basket case by making parts of these countries' territory contested,
and out of control of western recognized seating governments. Once countries territorial
integrity becomes challenged and out of control of western inspired governments, it becomes a
challenge to be absorbed by any for any alliances. Such a country is a failed country
dependent on western economic, political and military freebies. Likes of Ukraine, Georgia,
Azerbaijan etc. We shall see when, US/west feel, this will not work and will go nowhere, and
tries to climb down the unipolar peak. Both of these countries are dependent on Iran and
Russia.
Self-determination is considered a major principle of international law. This principle is
included in the UN's Charter (Chapter 1). Even if a group of people goes ahead with declaring
its independence and breaking away from a country it dislikes being part of, as in the case
of Crimea, without consulting with the UN in any way, the UN cannot object to this act. What
Crimea did, did not violate international law.
Had the Crimeans consulted with the UN, they very likely would have been advised to remain
part of Ukraine.
Self-determination does not require any support or sponsorship from the UN.
Good analysis by MOA, and I also hope the war burns out going nowhere.
As to those that say NK is Azeri territory: after the Armenians were genocided on the
street of Baku in the 1990's and Azeri's destroyed 5,000 Armenian monumemts would you just
'walk away' and not protect the people of NK? And after getting out followed by the Azeri's
butchering the Armenians of NG it will be ignored!
Why did the Turks bring all those jihadis to Azerbaijan to fight: they will run the
massacres in NK.
I am not disagreeing with the Crimean's decision, and indeed sympathize with it, but still
question whether it shouldn't be considered illegal. I mean, really, how does it differ from
Kosovo separating from Serbia, or the Turkish Cypriots from the Greeks. The UN does not
consider the Turkish Cypriots independent. Perhaps they need to be absorbed by Albania and
Turkey respectively to be considered "legal", just as Russia absorbed Crimea, although it is
not considered legal, either. So why hasn't Armenia annexed NK? Why hasn't the UN recognized
NK as a separate state?
Anyway, we are not discussing our preferences here. The Greek Cypriots rejected uniting
their country with the Turks under a UN referendum, but the Turks voted for a united country.
Why are the Turkish Cypriots not recognized as a country by the UN or anyone, but Turkey. Why
have they not been rewarded with EU membership as the Greeks were? Is it any surprise that
the Greeks won't negotiate in good faith with the Turks? Why should they? They get the
benefits. the Turks not.
As I noted in the last thread on this topic: the war serves to make the Azeris more dependent
on the West. 'Winning' the war is perhaps not the goal of those behind the conflict.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Oct 3 2020 20:33 utc | 25
So far the jihadis are hearsay, not fact nay more than the PKK are fact fighting with the
Armenians. It would not be surprizing in either case, but neither has been confirmed as fact,
but merely propaganda.
Again, it is not surprising that some people in the "Christian world attribute all the
massacres and destructions on the Muslims but ignor the massacres and ethnic cleansing
committed by the "Christian" side. This is is a tacit, perhaps subconscious racism that has
existed for hundreds of years. It is so difficult to be objective when you have been brought
up to dislike, perhaps even hate the other, isn't it?
@ Blue Dotterel ... thanks for your comments... you never said, but i take it you are of
turkish descent.. either way, i like the comments you make, even if i don't know enough to
agree or disagree with them.. there are usually 2 sides to every story, but we often don't
hear both sides stories..
"The Greek Cypriots rejected uniting their country"
As I understand it the war in Cyprus started when Greek Cypriots abolished the rules
stipulated by British colonizers meant to subjugate majority Greek population. Those rules
gave Turk Cypriots larger portion of the power then the Greek.
Voting for unification expecting to come back to the same discriminatory laws against Greek
Cypriots is non-option for the Greek Cypriots.
The other thing regarding proposition to Armenians to trade its own historical land for the
other part of its own land and call if fair is very biased by my opinion. It is almost the
same as proposition to Serbia to trade part of its land with current Serbian majority in the
Nato occupied part of the country (Kosovo and Metohia) for the other part of the Serbia
proper where some of the land has Albanian majority.
Proposal to trade a corridor to the Azerbaijans Nakhchivan for the corridor to Armenians
Nagorno Karabagh would be a fair proposal.
So in both cases/proposals (Cyprus and Armenia) on the surface seem fair but if someone
scratch the surface the situation appear to be far from the fair.
And in the both cases the presentation is biased for the Turkish side ... by accident.
Stupid people fighting stupid wars for stupid reasons. The peoples of the Caucasus need to
learn to live in peace with each other or the region will continue to be a backwater
exploited for great power geopolitical games.
Russia and Iran are correct to stay out of this and let the idiots kill each other. If
there was any significant security threat from the mob of unruly idiots running Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Armenia; the Russian and Iranians would roll over them all in 48 hours and
there is not a damn thing anyone outside the Caucasus could do about it.
Agreed, sorry Mr B, no malice intended, but your blog's credibility with unfamiliar
audiences could potentially be undermined with some occasionally 'liberal' use of the English
language.
Respect for using your foreign language skills of course, but perhaps a friendly proof
reader with native English skills could also be an idea..
No, I am of mixed European descent, both east and west. And yes, that is the problem; we
seldom do seek out both sides. When one looks at the Assange case, one sees the the problem
of our age (and many others) where the prosecution is allowed to present its case with all
prejudice, but the defense is repeatedly hampered by the supposedly impartial judge. And the
media, well what to the people get - propaganda, often through ommision in this case.
Similarly, peoples are judged by through the propaganda of a culture or society, usually
to benefit those with power. So people are taught to demonize or denigrate the other assuming
their own to have upstanding moral character or, if defeated in some way, victims needing
redress.
After the bombing of the Turkish consulate in Ottawa in the early 80s by an Armenian
terrorist group, ASALA, I made a point of educating myself on the so called genocide issue,
but had a hard time finding the Turkish point of view in Canada. As fortune would have it, I
found employment in Turkey, and eventually discovered what was difficult to find in Canada:
an alternative point of view concerning the issue and many others. Examining the writers'
treatment of facts and their academic backgrounds was certainly educational in many
cases.
Suffice it to say that on being able to actually see the "defense", I came to different
judgements from those I would be able to come to in my home country.
@ Blue Dotterel | Oct 3 2020 21:23 utc | 36.. thank you for this as well.. i hear what you
are saying.. it is an ongoing battle to get all the information and nuances.. we probably
don't ever get all the information necessary which is why i resort to believing war is not
the answer.. easy for me to say this here on the westcoast of canada...
Ah yes, the "other side's" point of view about Armenian genocide. Did you look for the Nazis'
point of view about the Shoah, too?
Point is, Turkey has been genociding (directly or by proxies) non-Muslim people since the
late 19th century, and keeps trying to do it everywhere it can. In a way, Kurds are lucky to
be Muslim, they're just occupied and suppressed instead of being mass-murdered by the
millions - unlike Cypriots, Greeks, Armenians, Yazidis, Assyrians and others.
The seven surrounding regions should be returned to Azerbaijan, so that 600,000 refugees can
return to their homes. NKAO should be allowed to join Armenia to avoid creating new refugees.
I understand that legally NKAO is part of Azerbaijan, but Armenians have been living in
Artsakh for thousands of years, and it is unrealistic to expect them to give up and leave. On
the other hand, it is morally wrong to preserve the status quo and thus accept the ethnic
cleansing of the 90s. That's why a compromise is needed.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Oct 3 2020 19:55 utc | 22
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, is commonplace in war time,
and even in peace time.
Yeah, when was that when Bulgarians expelled Turks from Bulgaria, 1989? It was tragic, hard
to watch.
Nationalism is evil. I blame French for that disease.
Somewhat unrelated question: so Karabakh is written in Turkish Karabağ, which is
quite similar (to me) to Montenegro, Karadağ. Is the similarity accidental, or both
words have related meaning / connotation?
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Oct 3 2020 20:54 utc | 29
So far the jihadis are hearsay, not fact nay more than the PKK are fact fighting with the
Armenians. It would not be surprizing in either case, but neither has been confirmed as
fact, but merely propaganda.
Bulent Ecevit, two time PM of Turkey, leftist and a poet, suggested the logical solution to
the problem years ago. He suggested that Armenia cede land along the Armenian/Iran border
of similar size so that Azerbaijan could unite with its southern territory Nakhchivan, thus
Nagorno Karabagh could be exchanged for this territory. Both sides would be winners one
assumes.
I would not be one who so assumes. Armenia would be nuts to give up their border
with the one neighbor supportive of them while creating contiguity between Turkey and
Azerbaijan's main territory.
One of my all-time favorite recordings is Love, Devotion, Surrender
(Santana, McLaughlin). The very first piece on the album, a cover of Coltrane's "A Love
Supreme," has the two guitarists engage in a master-acolyte argument that frantically
escalates, culminating in a crescendo of...agreement?
Yeah, those Syrian "rebels" that Turkey shipped to Azerbaijan are more than hearsay and
rumor. My heart really bleeds for them that when they got there they found they were facing a
well-equipped and trained army, rather than having their pick of defenseless Christian
villages where they could bring to bear their skills in robbing, raping, enslaving, and
beheading.
Even without conquering anything, with a large supply of drones and cheap yet robust comms
(I feel the need to think of point to point IR, but I don't know enough about modern radio),
the attacker can do a lot of damage without losing anything that expensive, i.e. potentially
cheap spotter and relay drones, plus the munitions themselves. Air defense technology made to
counter turn-of-the-century jets/helis/cruise-missiles, is not really appropriate. Handing
out manpads in quantity creates other problems.
This is what I come to MoA for. And it's nice to see b disclose his authorship with his
trademark idiomatic slips ("full extend" for "to their full extent", 'unveil' for 'reveal'
and 'relicts' for 'relics', etc).
"Full extend" was a slight error, but "unveil" seems perfectly fine to me, and "relicts"
was a better choice than "relics" in that context. (Though really the Antonov An-2 isn't
either a relic or relict "from the late 1940s": they were produced in vast numbers for
decades.)
@ Dr Wellington 46: Also 'Visions of the Emerald Beyond' by The Mahavishnu Orchestra is a
fantastic album that I think captures the Fusion era with a sense of refinement and less of
the "slop".
Extend should be extent, I like discover better there than reveal or unveil, and relic has
religious connotations, relict implies "remnant" which might work, derelict suggests
inoperable, hmmm.
Maybe "remnant" or "survivor" would work.
But to be honest B's usage didn't bother me reading over it, the Internets is nothing if
not slovenly about grammar and usage.
Some people here speak of yet more "exchanges" of territory as if it wouldn't involve 100%
replacement of the people living there. and almost certainly by murder. They seem to think
ethnic cleansing can be undone by more ethnic cleansing or at the very least loudly support
one more round of it as a "final solution". They make it easy to understand why Erdogan
references Hitler in positive terms.
The suggestion that Armenia and Artsakh losing their borders to Iran is fair is silly and
anything but fair. It is an invitation to more war and genocide after such a "peace deal".
The "peace plan" is nothing but siege warfare, it is a barely disguised war plan targeting
Armenia and Artsakh.
North Cyprus being presented as some kind of Turkish benevolence belies the fact of the
current ethnic Turkic dominance of the demographics of North Cyprus which did not happen by
natural means, ie. it was/is over forty years of steadfast ethnic cleansing. Almost none of
them were Cypriot when the Turkish invasion happened no matter how much they lie and pretend
they were.
@hopehely how conveniently you forget that Bulgaria was under the Ottoman rule for 500 years
and plenty of Bulgarian got murdered by the Turks during that time. WHEN the Bulgarians
rebelled against the Turks in 1875–78, the Europeans didn't wept for ALL the Bulgarian
women, children and men that were savagely slaughtered by the Turks, but instead sent one guy
who claimed he never saw any atrociousness.
YEah, most of modern peoples' memory goes as far back as WII, everything else is forgotten.
FUCK YOU, the Turks have always been savages.
Before President Trump stopped the program the CIA had used the Azerbaijani Silk Way Airlines
in more than 350 flights to bring weapons from Bulgaria to Turkey to then hand them to
'Syrian rebels'. Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, is not only a CIA station but also a Mossad
center for waging its silent war against Iran.
This is dubious. Why use an Azeri airline to ferry weapons over the border that separates
Bulgaria from Turkey, with a choice of three highways, an electrified railroad, or even by a
ship (164 nautical miles between the main ports of the two countries).
If Blitzkrieg failed the Azeris will use the attrition war tactic and that is absolutely
certain to succeed. Murad Gazdiev tweeted selfies posted by Jihadi imports in Azeri uniforms
in Azerbaijan here: https://mobile.twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1312372865937932289
Jihadis will therefore be used as canon fodder by Azerbaijan while the Ottomans take over the
air combat, directly or indirectly. Unless Azerbaijan is stupid enough to attack Armenia
directly there is nothing Russia will ever do about it.
At some point approaching rapidly Armenian frontline positions will collapse and then
there will be a panicked refugee flood into Armenia from Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding
occupied Azeri areas. At that point Nagorno Karabakh will become impossible to defend.
Whether Azerbaijan permits Erdogan to seed the area with jihadis is an open question, but at
the least Erdo will place Ottoman troops there to "guard against Armenia".
Without Nagorno Karabakh Armenia is actually worth very little to Russia. Even if it could
be "taught a lesson" by Putinist restraint it would be strategically useless and a resource
hole. A NATO Armenia, with or without a NATO Azerbaijan, would be a strategic disaster but
that's the way things seem headed.
Watching the latest South Front videos it is easy to see how drone technology makes it
difficult to move vehicles and set up fixed positions. It looks like a very high technology
affair to counter drones.
Very expensive very costly training would equate to excellent results in second and third
world areas for combat drones. Again the war party wins. It would be cheaper to build stable
societies. What a toxic mess. It must be some weird parallel groups of death cults pushing
this continued chaos.
Maybe is is just plain old human nature with high tech advantages over bronze and iron
weapons. Even the bronze age brought a long period of peace and prosperity for a time.
If Blitzkrieg failed the Azeris will use the attrition war tactic and that is absolutely
certain to succeed. Murad Gazdiev tweeted selfies posted by Jihadi imports in Azeri uniforms
...
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 4 2020 2:18 utc | 58
I beg to differ. This is not Libya, both sides have relatively large armies, Armenians
have weapons, high ground, prepared positions and people who believe that the choice is
between standing the ground and exile (or worse). They will not be demoralized by few hundred
casualties. Azerbaijan has low ground, attack uphill is not easy, and the motivation of
soldiers is not as good. After bringing few hundred or even few thousands of second rate
jihadists the equation will not change (inequality if you will).
Of course, if the war is protracted, both sides will need supplies. Except for Turkey, no
one declared the will to supply either side, but unofficial traffic is bound to happen.
Russia and Iran will surely neutralize any supplies from Turkey and Israel, they need to
maintain the regional balance that so far is in their favor.
Then there is no potential for tipping the balance by direct intervention: it will trigger
direct Russian response. Concerning the coming winter, one should read Wikipedia "Battle of
Sarikamish". On New Year Eve of 1915, Turkish army advised by Germans attacked Russian
positions after crossing high mountains. Because of even bloodier fighting in France, Russia
was attacking in East Prussia to relieve the French and Caucasus Army was at half of full
strength. The result was that 1/3 of Russian troops were lost, a lot of them to frostbite,
and about the Turks there are debates: did 1/10 of them survive, a bit less, or a bit
more.
"... As soon as many generals retire, they become the high-paid consultants and lobbyists for the major weapons manufacturers. There was a time when the Boston Globe and papers wrote about it. I wonder how many will now. It is time to recognize the problem and face up to the destructive influence it is having on our nation and our families in both our foreign and domestic policies. ..."
"... This is another consequence of allowing the people who own the media to own other things. Allowing the people who make bullets and bombs to own media is a sure recipe for perpetual war. ..."
"... It is quite normal for a top General to protect his cabal of corruption. He still has his slush fund money to protect. These military "Heroes" are in the habit of sending men to their deaths, just to advance themselves into top jobs with the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... They retire into prime Lobbying positions as well. This corruption has produced more broken Veterans than Covid-19 has produced deaths. ..."
"... “ I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending our troops to combat when it is required in national security and in the last resort, ” As invading Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos.... and many other countries was a last resort to secure the US national security. ..."
"... Trump says those things, and at the same time increases the Pentagon's budget & spending to over $1 Trillion (more than the next 15 Countries combined, and 13 of them are your allies).. ..."
"... Trump is picking up some that vote that supported Tulsi Gabbard, or so I speculate. Though he speaks with a bit of forked tongue -- stealing oil in Syria, won't pull out of Iraq when told by Iraqi government; still in Afghanistan long after the Pentagon lost the war there again another war lost against a fourth world country. ..."
"... An interviewer should test this man's integrity with a simple question, such as.. "When you retire, will promise to live off your generous pension....like Eisenhower in his rocking chair....and not go to work for an arms manufacturer or think tank or any other paid position?" ..."
"... Trump should spin the rest of the beans. Directly and indirectly, the Violence Industry is the biggest employer in the US. It's a gigantic social program. ..."
"... I think Trump is posturing for re election purposes . He is clearly in the hands of the deep state. ..."
"... Trump promised to end America’s “endless wars” . Just look at the people he appointed. They all love war. and trying to expand them. Russia showed the world, convoys of stolen Syrian oil. Than Russia bombed them. Now the US is stealing even more Syrian oil and nobody is bombing it. ..."
"... Biden was thinking about rebuilding contracts for his family and friends before the first bombs ever fell General.. ..."
Army Chief of Staff General James McConville has vehemently rejected Donald Trump's comments
alleging that the military's top commanders wish to entangle the US in as many wars as possible
in order to enrich weapon manufacturers.
" I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending
our troops to combat when it is required in national security and in the last resort, "
McConville, a Trump appointee, said during an online conference on Tuesday. " We take this
very, very seriously in how we make our recommendations. "
The general added that many of the US commanders have sons and daughters that currently
serve in the military and some of them " may be in combat right now. " The general
declined to more directly respond to Trump's allegations, saying the military should remain out
of politics.
The Chief of Staff was referring to the highly publicized comments Trump made on Monday. The
president said that " the top people in the Pentagon " might not be " in love "
with him " because they want to do nothing but fight wars " to provide business for the
US military-industrial complex.
During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to end America's " endless wars " as he
often calls them. However, the long-time military bureaucrats he appointed to command publicly
opposed Trump's propositions to reduce US military presence in Afghanistan and Syria.
Please. Who is he kidding. Rather than recognize the problem like an Al-Anon, he discredits
himself and his institution even by suggesting there isn't one. As soon as many generals
retire, they become the high-paid consultants and lobbyists for the major weapons
manufacturers. There was a time when the Boston Globe and papers wrote about it. I wonder how
many will now. It is time to recognize the problem and face up to the destructive influence
it is having on our nation and our families in both our foreign and domestic policies.
This is another consequence of allowing the people who own the media to own other things.
Allowing the people who make bullets and bombs to own media is a sure recipe for perpetual
war.
The media needs to be splintered into a thousand pieces with the new owners not allowed
to own anything else. The Sherman anti trust act used to spell this out in law.
LonDubh 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 07:04 PM
It is quite normal for a top General to protect his cabal of corruption. He still has his
slush fund money to protect. These military "Heroes" are in the habit of sending men to their
deaths, just to advance themselves into top jobs with the Military Industrial Complex.
They
retire into prime Lobbying positions as well. This corruption has produced more broken
Veterans than Covid-19 has produced deaths. VFW (Victims of Futile Wars) have seen their
ranks increase and their support mechanism decreased. Another generation of American youth
destined for the scrapheap of "Heros"
IgyBundy LonDubh 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 04:25 AM
Have you noticed what great liars these so called honorable military brass have become?
Better than most politicians..
“ I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend
sending our troops to combat when it is required in national security and in the last
resort, ” As invading Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos.... and
many other countries was a last resort to secure the US national security.
Everyone knows that there is collusion between some serving and ex top guns with the MIC.
Resulting in endless wars everywhere and many countries are forced by security tension to buy
more expensive weapons which they can ill afford
It is not the generals but the politicians that started the endless wars. The politicians get
campaign donations to their Super PACs or to an offshore numbered bank account.
Jewel Gyn 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 09:07 PM
What national security threat and last resort when all wars conducted are in foreign soils.
Even if there are threats on the hundreds of military bases deployed around the world, the
question is still 'what the *f are US troops there in the first place'.
Mark La Brooy 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 09:59 PM
Is it any surprise that the US spends $700 billion on defense. Next comes China with only $90
billion or thereabouts. Yes, Trump is right. It is all about the US military industry complex
and continuous war.
Apparently it's been the last resort continually since 1775.
Sinalco 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 07:05 PM
Trump says those things, and at the same time increases the Pentagon's budget & spending
to over $1 Trillion (more than the next 15 Countries combined, and 13 of them are your
allies).. As they say, action speaks louder than words - those are just cheap empty words to
rally his base for the coming election.
Trump not as much of a war monger as the establishment would like. Most Americans oppose war
but that has never slowed the establishment. Probably the biggest reason the establishment
is so opposed to Trump, among the other obvious reasons.
Are you a kindergartener or just plainly naive?!!! Trump knows Americans love to hear this,
so he is giving you the LIP SERVICE FCOL !!! He will pamper the MIC just as he has been doing
in the last 4 years once the election in November is over! Exactly because americans are so
incredibly foolish that Trump or Biden will be your next president, LOL!
donkeyoatee 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 01:52 AM
How was Vietnam or Iraq anything to do with US "national security" or the wars in Yemen or
anywhere in the middle east and around the globe. The US isn't doing "National security" it's
doing interference and domination.
Ekaterina 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 08:00 PM
I would laugh if this whole situation wasn’t so pitiful and sad. Eisenhower was right.
Shelbouy 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 10:34 AM
So many people say that Trump has not started any wars, which makes him ok. He didn't have
to, there were enough already going on. What he did not do is stop any!
Juan_More 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 07:39 PM
When the Generals and Colonels end up with very cushy jobs in the MIC after they retire. It
certainly does look like something is up. After all who authorised the F35, Ford class
aircraft carriers and my favourite winner of the silly name for a boat the USS Zumwalt
The MIC stooges at the Pentagon don't need to say anything, as Trump's remark reflects what
everybody already knows for decades.
Enki14 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 06:42 PM
LOL The facts speak for themselves and if one considers the endless war(s) since 911 were
based on LIES...the towers were brought down by controlled demolition...in charge that day
was dick cheney.
Trump is picking up some that vote that supported Tulsi Gabbard, or so I speculate. Though he
speaks with a bit of forked tongue -- stealing oil in Syria, won't pull out of Iraq when told
by Iraqi government; still in Afghanistan long after the Pentagon lost the war there again
another war lost against a fourth world country. And he's flirted with an invasion of
Venezuela, perhaps to keep the hawks and neolibs like Bolton and Bill Krystal on the edge of
their seats. Sort of like Merkel getting exercised over Navalny to counter all the blather of
war hawks and those who want to scuttle Nordstream 2. Throwing the ideological dog a bone.
It's satisfying to finally hear a US president pick up the theme Eisenhower warned of. Now
let him tell the truth of the filthy soul of the CIA, to take up where JFK left off. Trump
could do far worse than to thank Pence for his... See more
Jim Christian Rocky_Fjord 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 11:43 PM
Nah, Gabbi is a Democrat. But she's a good kid. She, unlike 99% of them, got a taste of ugly
military service and spoke out, only to be crushed. All you need to know of
military/political corruption is to study THAT.
Karl194 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 07:51 AM
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight Eisenhower (former
USA President)
pykich Karl194 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 08:14 AM
says the man who signed the "Grenada Treaty"...
Jim Christian 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 11:37 PM
How many times has the 'good' general recycled himself between defense contractor jobs and
board positions and then right back into the White House, sometimes to a University posting,
then back to the Pentagon, rinsing and repeating several times after retirement? How do these
Generals and Admirals become multi-millionaires otherwise? And there are hundreds of them.
And they bring us the WORST, most corrupt procurement such as the Ford Class Carriers and the
F-35, to name just TWO examples, albeit big ones Please. It's crooked as a 3-dollar bill.
Look at the Pentagon opposition to Trump's every single overture toward peace in the Middle
East (except Iran, which is a big mistake, our issues were resolved until they weren't under
Trump). Any contest to the premise that the U.S. military is corrupt beyond repair is
patently absurd. And this "General" is just the wrong representative to refute the truth. He
is after all, part of the corruption.
Rocky_Fjord Jim Christian 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 11:46 PM
Two classes of US submarines were made with inferior steel from Australia. The steel was
known by the contractor to be inferior, but the Pentagon did not run its own tests. So tens
of billions wasted for subs that are unsafe at depths and of course in actual combat
conditions. The generals and politicians float above it all like scu*m on a fe*tid pond.
shadowlady 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 09:24 PM
The Pentagon has to justify its enormous budget, they provoke conflict at every turn.
a325 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 09:06 PM
“I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending
our troops to combat when it is required in national security and in the last resort" yada
yada , of course you are going to say that. Admitting the truth would be instant career
suicide
wasn't it Trump and many other presidents who were dishing out money left right and centre to
the american war machine to build bigger and so called better weapons. Goes to show no matter
what when push comes to shove the american government will always blame anyone else but
themselves.
foxenburg 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 01:48 AM
An interviewer should test this man's integrity with a simple question, such as.. "When you
retire, will promise to live off your generous pension....like Eisenhower in his rocking
chair....and not go to work for an arms manufacturer or think tank or any other paid
position?"
Ever since Obama was elected we hear way to much out of these so called Generals. Jumping on
a bandwagon is something active Generals should never do.
lectrodectus 10 September, 2020 10 Sep, 2020 02:06 AM
Frankiln Delanor Roosevelt: (During The Depression Created The WPA Works Progress
Administration) "Instead Of Spending As Some Nations Do Half Their National Income In Piling
Up Armaments And More Armaments For The Purposes Of War, We in America Are Wiser In Using Our
Wealth On Projects Like This Which Will Us More Wealth And Greater Happiness For Our
Children" (Fireside Chats) Similar To Dwight D Eisenhower.
RealWorld1 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 12:26 PM
Trump should spin the rest of the beans. Directly and indirectly, the Violence Industry is
the biggest employer in the US. It's a gigantic social program.
I think Trump is posturing for re election purposes . He is clearly in the hands of the deep
state.
Fred Dozer 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 12:17 AM
Trump promised to end America’s “endless wars” . Just look at the people he
appointed. They all love war. and trying to expand them. Russia showed the world, convoys of
stolen Syrian oil. Than Russia bombed them. Now the US is stealing even more Syrian oil and
nobody is bombing it.
Is Trump really anti-war? Or he is just trying to exert his power over those hawkish generals
in Pentagon to tell the world who is in charge of US? If he is truly against all kinds of
war, that must be the only acceptable thing he has done so far.
The war industry, the prison industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and many others, they all
have their lobbyists and their plans for making more money. And manufacturing more wars, more
prisoners, and more diseases is not beyond them. Freedom and democracy and high cholesterol
are money making cons, and sometimes it takes a con like Trump to recognize it.
PurplePaw 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 02:59 PM
IF TRUMP WANTS TO END WARS ( KILLING) AND RIGHTLY SO THESE SO CALLED GENERALS NEED TO BE
OUSTED FAST. THE MILITARY SHOULD BE IN MY VIEW INCLUDED IN POLITICS AND EXPOSED AS IN ANCIENT
TIMES. A WARRIOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO BECOME CHIEF AS IN THE PAST. A PERSON LIKE ALEXANDER,
JULIUS, BUT THEY MUST ALSO BE THE MOST GALLANT WITH HUMILITY AS IN ARTHUR'S DAYS. NONE OF THE
HIGH MILITARY MEN HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK IN THE DARK TO DECEIVE WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. TO
MUCH OF THAT WHERE THEY ARE. TRUMP IS RIGHT ON HERE, STOP ABORTION.
pykich 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 08:10 AM
They should ask him what his plans after retiring are...
Ph7 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 06:06 AM
If he's so worried about national security "his" troops should be on the streets of US not in
the bushes of Afghanistan and Iraq .
off topic, but very important, Sen. Ben Sasse's op-ed regarding repeal of the 17th amendment.
Haven't seen mention of it at RT. Whether you are red or blue, this is massive in returning
power to the people.
DavidG992 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 06:08 PM
He could stage this 'ati-war' show only becasue democrats have ceded opposition to the
military-industrial war machine to a belligerent fraud.
Absolute truth really bothers these folks a lot. And Trump is not afraid to speak it.
Frank Cannon 8 September, 2020 8 Sep, 2020 08:58 PM
They leave the military for high paying indusrty jobs as a form of Briberty / reward for
keeping the endless wrs going & business good..
Mark90168 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 04:24 AM
Every candidate before election become wise due to seeing sword over his heads but after
winning the election they again become hate mongers and wars lovers. The US election
candidates should never be trusted. It reminds me "The game of thrones."
This is easy. Trump has always done exactly as the pentagon wants. this is a stunt for Qanon
votes that's all. Trump is smart he reads. He knows what Qanon thinks and wants to give them
a bone.
General James McConville , even if you tell us that tomorrow the Sun will rise from the East
we will not believe you, until we see it ourselves, general McCorrupt.
Karl194 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 07:55 AM
The DEEP STATE is build by the bosses in the FBI, CIA and the PENTAGON.
Winter7Mute 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 04:41 AM
Violence as a way of gaining power... is being camouflaged under the guise of tradition,
national honor [and] national security. For almost 100yrs now.
Mark90168 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 05:04 AM
Every candidate before election become wise due to seeing sword over his heads but after
winning the election they again become hate mongers and wars lovers. The US election
candidates should never be trusted. It reminds me the game of thrones.
Over the past three months, the Russian Be-200ES amphibious aircraft flew more than 200
times for suppressing wildland fires in Turkey. Aircraft with Russian crews onboard have been
participating in the firefighting missions at difficult and strategically important places
and locations since June 16. Total flight time exceeded 400 hours .
####
I don't know how I missed this.
So while Russia has been putting out fires in fancy parts of Turkey (Izmir), Turkey has
been continuing its fires in Syria!
Fighting between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces over the disputed region of
Nagorno-Karabakh intensified, on Monday, with heavy civilian and military casualties reported
amid disputed claims of an Azeri warplane being shot down.
Azerbaijani troops and forces from Nagorno-Karabakh have been trading artillery and rocket
fire, with the population of much of Karabakh told to seek shelter. Meanwhile, Armenia has
declared a general mobilization and barred men between the ages of 18 and 55 from leaving the
country, except with the approval of military authorities.
The most intense attacks took place in the Aras river valley, near the border with Iran, and
the Matagis-Talish front in the northeast of the region, according to Armenian Defense Ministry
spokesman Artsrun Hovhannisyan. He claimed that the Azeri side has lost 22 tanks and a dozen
other vehicles, along with 370 dead and many wounded.
Artur Sargsyan, deputy commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh military, said their own losses so
far have amounted to 84 dead and more than 200 wounded. Both figures should be understood in
the context of an ongoing information war run by the belligerents.
Vagram Pogosyan, spokesman for the president of the self-declared Artsakh Republic –
the ethnic Armenian de-facto government in the capital Stepanakert – said their forces
shot down an Azeri An-2 airplane outside the town of Martuni on Monday. This is in addition to
some three dozen drones, including ones provided by Turkey, that the Armenian forces claim to
have shot down over the past 48 hours.
Baku has denied the reports, saying only that two civilians were killed on Monday, in
addition to five on Sunday, and 30 were injured. There was no official information on military
casualties. Reports concerning the downed airplane were rejected as "not corresponding to
reality."
Azeri forces have taken several strategically important locations near the village of Talish
in Nagorno-Karabakh, Colonel Anar Eyvazov, spokesman for the Defense Ministry in Baku, said in
a statement. He was also quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying that Lernik Vardanyan, an
Armenian airborne commander, was killed near Talish. Armenia has denied this and labelled it
"disinformation."
In a video conference on Monday, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev told UN General Secretary
Antonio Guterres that the question of Nagorno-Karabakh should be resolved in line with UN
Security Council resolutions guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and called
for the urgent withdrawal of Armenian troops from "occupied territories."
The current Azeri offensive is backed by Turkey, whose President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
called Armenia "the biggest threat" to peace in the region and called for it to end the
"occupation" of Azeri land.
"Recent developments have given all influential regional countries an opportunity to put
in place realistic and fair solutions," he said in Istanbul on Monday.
Unconfirmed reports that Turkish-backed militants from northern Syria have been transported
to Azerbaijan to fight the Armenians have been denied by Baku as "complete nonsense."
They amount to "another provocation from the Armenian side," Khikmet Gadzhiev, an aide
to President Aliyev, told Al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan vowed his people "won't retreat a
single millimeter from defending our people and our Artsakh." All Armenians "must unite
to defend our history, our homeland, identity, our future and our present, " Pashinyan
tweeted on Sunday from
Yerevan.
Nagorno-Karabakh is one of several border disputes left over from the collapse of the Soviet
Union. An enclave predominantly populated by Armenians, it seceded from Azerbaijan in 1988 and
declared itself the Republic of Artsakh following a bitter war in 1992-94.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
In Karabakh Turkish drones #Bayraktar started systematic destruction of enemy armored
vehicles. Of course they are ruled by the Turks. Azerbaijani operators simply could not learn
how to manage them in such a short time. The Armenian side opposes them with the outdated
Osa-AKM complexes. They cannot cope with this task.
Most likely, the Coral electronic warfire system operate in conjusction with the drones.
They create interference, operators are distracted by false targets, while drones enter the
target and destroy it. If in the near future the Armenian side will not be able to quickly
clear the airspace, then the Azerbaijanis will show many more shots with the destruction of
armored vehicles.
What can be opposed to #Bayraktar ? Do not think that they are invulnerable. "BUKs" and
"Pantsir" systems cope well with them. But we cannot say yet whether they are in the area of
hostilities.
By their actions, the Ottomans make it clear that strike drones will be deployed anywhere in
the world where there are Turkish interests. That's their brand. Similar to the Syrian
mercenaries. Accordingly, their opponents first of all need to think about building an
effective air defense system.
If you have a territorial dispute with Turkey, then it is better not to run to the UN with
another note of protest. And he will directly turn to Russia with a request to urgently sell
several "BUKs". Trust that there will be much more benefit from it. Indeed, while the world
community calls on the parties to sit down at the negotiating table, dozens of your soldiers
are dying on the battlefields. And "BUK" in seconds can prove to a presumptuous guest that he
was not expected in this sky. And neither he nor his brothers should appear here.
Interesting link Evdokimova, 79% Armenians and 84% Azerbaijanis want the USSR back, that
goes to confirm the castotrophe of the USSR dissolution, of course there would be no wars in
that inmense area, in exchange for McDonalds advertised by Gorby we have now conflicts
galore, Moldavia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kirguizia,
Abjazia, Osetia.... and who needs to eat that crap?
An opportunity to hit several skittles with one ball was too much to leave alone for the
Turks, especially if the skittles could be hit down in someone else's backyard and
particularly if that someone else happens to be a client state of Turkey's.
It surely also suits the United States in some way, if that opportunity leads to Russia
and Iran becoming bogged down fighting in the Caucasus, and they are forced to take their
attention (and money, arms and fighters) away from Idlib province in NW Syria.
So presumably if the Azeris could beat the Armenians with imported "Syrian rebels", that
then would encourage home-grown rebel wannabes in Daghestan, Chechnya and other Muslim areas
in the northern Caucasus to "rise up" against Russian rule. At the same time, Azeris in NW
Iran would be inspired (in the wildest dreams of both the American and Turkish governments)
to rise up against Tehran and declare their part of Iran independent.
Unfortunately the Armenians, despite their government's pro-American tendencies, recovered
from what must have been surprise attacks and were able to retaliate quickly and hard. Now
Russia has taken the high road and offered itself as a mediator.
Let's see if the US and the EU can persuade the Armenians with their offers of loans worth
billions (presumably contingent on Armenians deferring to Israel as to whose Holocaust
deserves to be called a "Holocaust" and not a mere genocide - even though Winston Churchill
about 100 years ago or so used the term to describe the Ottoman massacres of Armenians and
other Christian groups in their empire) away from Russian mediation and negotiation. If the
money fails to lure Armenia into the IMF / World Bank debt trap, there goes the opportunity
to scatter all the skittles.
I'm trying to get a better contextual setup to this conflict. I recall the USA directed
coup attempt dubber "Electric Yerevan" when a company from said nation bought the power
company, ran it into the ground and used it as a basis for sparking protests. Next I am
hearing that the current president is a "Random Guido" who answer to the USA. If so how does
this effect Armenias strategic partnership with Russia? From what little I know about the
Armenian spirit they are fiercely devoted to their culture. Many Americans of Armenian would
fly back to the old country in order to take up arms. It seems as though this conflict is
going to escalate if only because the damage done so far. Armenia is fully mobilizing.
In regard to the Donbass situation, I gathered that the Ukrops army was heavily laden with
conscripts many of whom fled to Russia. They succumbed to the cauldron tactic due in part to
be order by "results driven" leaders in the rear. That and they stuck to the roads and were
easily flanked by smaller NAF units operating "in the green" What I found interesting (and
disturbing) about this conflict is that it resembles what could very well happen in the USA,
minus the armor although....
I'm trying to get a better contextual setup to this conflict. I recall the USA directed
coup attempt dubber "Electric Yerevan" when a company from said nation bought the power
company, ran it into the ground and used it as a basis for sparking protests. Next I am
hearing that the current president is a "Random Guido" who answer to the USA. If so how does
this effect Armenias strategic partnership with Russia? From what little I know about the
Armenian spirit they are fiercely devoted to their culture. Many Americans of Armenian would
fly back to the old country in order to take up arms. It seems as though this conflict is
going to escalate if only because the damage done so far. Armenia is fully mobilizing.
In regard to the Donbass situation, I gathered that the Ukrops army was heavily laden with
conscripts many of whom fled to Russia. They succumbed to the cauldron tactic due in part to
be order by "results driven" leaders in the rear. That and they stuck to the roads and were
easily flanked by smaller NAF units operating "in the green" What I found interesting (and
disturbing) about this conflict is that it resembles what could very well happen in the USA,
minus the armor although....
Although it is, clearly I suppose, not my field, from known and new mostly military
analysis sources recently found, I will try form a somehow readable post...( forgive thus
if I do not write the weapons denomination correctly...I make the effort to keep you
informed...and alos take into account, I am figuring out the events without thoroughly
studying the maps, I have passed the day working/making food shopping/taking a nap... )
On the doubts about whether Russia would intervene on behalf of Armenia, that wouldv
happen if Armenia request assistance under CIS agreements, but Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh
( currently Republic of Arsakh, the name of ancient Great Armenia, to eliminate the azeri
denomination Karabakh.. ) is not Armenia, it is a region which apealed self-determination
but not recognized by any nation so far...not even by Armenia, due the ceasfire signed in
1994 ( what implies that the war never ended, but was frozen for a while, to be reignited
from time to time...) Thread ( you translate the Twitts on your own this time...otherwise
would get too long post..)
Both countries are very mountainous terrain, this is Caucasus, what makes advancement
quite difficult, thus, eventhough at first moments success was falling on the side of
Azerbaijan ( which counts with the unestimable help of Turkish swarms of drones and
intelligence from Turkish AWACSm it seems that Armenia, which has its borders mined, has
inflicted heavy loses in armor to Azerbaijan today, destroyed and captured....( warning
disturbing content of people flying in the air space..), also list of fallen in the
Armenian side, most milennials...This is when most fallen could have originated...in
Martakhert, in the North...
#LATEST HOUR #URGENT #Azerbaiyan army claims to have destroyed #Armenia's air defense in
Martakhert (north), with 12 OSA systems destroyed. The #Martakhert garrison would be
surrounded and offered the option to surrender.
#LATEST HOUR First list of fallen in combat by #Armenia. Note that most are kids born in
2000. The Armenian Defense Ministry also claims that during a successful counterattack
they have captured 11 armor including an advanced BMP-3.
It seems that modern warfare through drones is rendering heavy armor a bit obsolete,
well, like seating ducks slowly advancing in mountainous terrain of Caucasus..
The miniature air campaign being carried out by the #Azerbaijan drones against #Armenia
seems to be very successful. Its main protagonist is being the MAM-L micromissiles from
#Turkey.
#Azerbaiyan has already deployed the TOS-1 Buratino thermobaric rocket launchers. The
#Azerbaiyan drone air campaign continues to wreak havoc on the Armenian ranks.
BTW, @flighradar24, where some people use to follow flights path is under attack...guys
are saying this is Turkey/ Azrbaijan so that their drones can not be followed..
Some additional points in this thread by another guy who works for @descifraguerra, with
what is described by him as #cutremapa ( an outline made in the run without much
precision so as to clarify his points.. ):
There are skirmishes throughout practically the entire front but the "serious" fighting
is concentrated in the areas marked A (Murov Peak), B (Agdara - Heyvali axis) and C
(Fuzuli region). Especially in the latter, I refer to the video.
The ultimate goal of the Azeris appears to be a south-north pincer on the capital of
Artsakh, Stepanakert, with all the difficulties that this entails. Taking this into
account, it seems that there are two previous objectives.
The first of these objectives is to cut the M11, the main logistics artery of Artsakh,
for which they have two options: A) Take the peak of Murov and block the road taking
advantage of the heights. But storming up the mountain is always tricky.
B) Take the Heyvali junction. To do so, they must first cross several towns, such as
Aghdara, and it is in this area where it seems that more artillery fire is concentrating
in the last hours.
The second ideal objective would be to cut the M12, the second most important road in
the area and therefore the second most important supply route, but considering its
position this is something very difficult to carry out in most of its tracing.
So it seems that they are opting for a second objective, a priori simpler: to capture
the Fuzali region (remember, zone C on the map) and cut the M12 at the entrance to
Stepanakert itself (just 1.37 km south From the capital).
For now, it seems that the Armenians are holding up well to the south, although it is
the front in which the most intense fighting has taken place so far this day, but they
have less and less anti-aircraft and that allows the Azeri drones to act.
On the growing military drone industry being built by Turkey ( guess where the command
and control of those swarms of drones attacking one day after another Khmeimin and Syrian
positions and warehousesd is placed ), in the hands of his son-in-law, it seems that Syrian
oil smuggling resulted most profitting...
Turkey is laying the foundations of its geopolitics in the massive use of drones in
places of conflict where it has great interests.
To achieve his goals, Erdogan managed to establish his own drone industry. He is
currently in the hands of one of his sons-in-law.
But Erdogan is so blatant in his challenges that it is plain he fancies Turkey to be
Russia's equal on the world stage, and dares to poke it even as he takes actions that result
in greater power and influence for Turkey. He needs a hard kick in the ass to remind him
where his provocative actions are taking him. The west is unhappy with Turkey's cozying-up to
Russsia, but is doubtless delighted when he behaves like this.
Maybe Armenia could call it's new friends in NATO and in the EU
Please read the following it is a quote from an article over a Moon of Alabama.
" .. . Although a long-standing Russian partner, Armenia has also developed ties with the
West: It provides troops to NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and is a member of NATO's
Partnership for Peace, and it also recently agreed to strengthen its political ties with the
EU. The United States might try to encourage Armenia to move fully into the NATO orbit. If
the United States were to succeed in this policy, then Russia might be forced to withdraw
from its army base at Gyumri and an army and air base near Yerevan (currently leased until
2044), and divert even more resources to its Southern Military District. "
Armenia after its colour revolution started to act in an anti -Russian way
Yet Russia is supposed to feel obliged to help Armenia?
What for? they have shown that they are going in another direction
And I think both Azerbaijan and Turkey looked at Armenia's behaviour to Russia and are
taking full advantage of a weakened alliance.
You make some good points. If Armenia has politically distanced itself from Russia and
approached the West and the NATO then it makes no sense for Russia to offer help without
strings attached. But Russia cannot let Turkey/Azerbaijan overrun Armenia either, or let
Azerbaijan grab Nagarno-Karabakh, because it would strengthen Turkish position too much in
the Caucasus region.
Yes, you are plainly having the time of your life and yukking it up again like you do
whenever something difficult happens to put Russia in a bad position – plainly, you are
a real friend of Russia, and only motivated by concern. Keep on laughing and making jokes.
Perhaps Russia should drop a bunker-buster on your house – would that be a martial
enough reaction for you?
They should – they should smack down a Turkish aircraft without warning and at the
first available opportunity. Russia is trying to stabilize the situation and calm things
down, while Turkey is openly backing Azerbaijan's military operation. A hard slap now could
break the cycle, but it seems plain Erdogan will get away with whatever he is allowed to.
It almost doesn't matter whether Turkey shot down the Armenian Su-25, rather that Armenia
has publicly stated it. This is about crossing the Rubicon. For all the chest-beating and rah
rah rah from In'Sultin' Erd O'Grand & Aliyev, both states have denied it happened. Here
we clearly see the gulf between broadcast to self-and actual potential consequences of such
an action.
Add to that Armenia has been open (not necessarily transparent) about its losses. Theres
been nothing from Azerbaidjan except American Vietnam war style 'body counts' of
Armenians.
It looks to me that Armenia are upping the ante to the max. and Azerbaidjan is left
wanting by its response which makes no sense if its claims of victories/whatever are anywhere
near true.
What I really want to know is what if any assistance, apart from words, the US is
providing and comparatively Russia. One or them is clearly in a much better position than the
other. There's really not much to go on as we know Russia does not broadcast and it certainly
would not be in the current 'pro-EU' Armenian administrations interest either. Yet again, we
are only left to ask what hasn't been said & done.
As far as I can see, Armenia is keeping most of its powder dry. The threat of 'other
measures' is currently more useful (and doesn't entail the same risks) than actually enacting
them. Maybe Putin will invite €µ to cover Aliyev's humilition as Sarkozy was for
Sakaashiti's? Now that would be funny, but we must not get ahead of ourselves..
Strategically, each time In'Sultin' Erd O'Grand backs stunts like these, he exposes
himself further to trouble at home. For Russia, not being fully NATO onside is evidently
quite useful however distasteful his behavior is, but he may well be undoing himself and
putting Turkey squarely back in to the western camp overall but retaining its nationalist Big
Boy streak.
Осеннее
военное
обострение в
Нагорном
Карабахе для
многих стало
совершенной
неожиданностью.
Но специалисты,
которые следят
за
военно-политической
обстановкой в
Закавказье,
подобное
развитие
событий давно
предсказывали.
В частности,
эксперты
Центра анализа
стратегий и
технологий
(ЦАСТ) еще два
года назад
спрогнозировали
обострение
ситуации в
Карабахе. В их
книге "В
ожидании бури:
Южный Кавказ"
даны оценки,
которые, судя
по всему,
подтверждаются
сегодня, пишет
Сергей
Вальченко в
материале для
сайта MK.ru
####
More at the link.
This looks like a reasonable analysis. If you are lazy like I am, use and online
translator.
I don't see how Armenia can accept the loss of critical territory even if the Azeri
operations are 'limited.' According to the interview, Azerbiajan is repeating the tactics of
2018 which is a big NO NO according to Tsun Tzu. I would be surprises is Armenia hasn't
already planned for this. The big fly in this ointment is Yerevan which may delay or limit a
response and listen to its 'western partners.' That would cement Azeri successes and damage
the 'Pro-EU' government. One reasonable strategy would be to actually encourage Azeri
'successes' as tehy would be tempted to go further than their limited goals and draw the
forces in to a pre-prepared 'cauldron', aka kiling zone as occured previously in the Donbass
and wrap up the Azeri army and gain ground. There's the risk that it wouldn't work either,
yet again Tsun Tzu do not fight the next war as you fough the last
On Sunday Ilham Aliyev, the longtime dictator of Azerbaijan,
launched a war on the Armenian held Nagorno-Karabakh area. That he dared to do this now, 27
years after a ceasefire ended a war over the area, is a sign that the larger strategic picture
has changed.
When the Soviet Union fell apart the Nagorno-Karabakh area had a mixed population of
Azerbaijani (also called Azeri) Shia Muslims and Armenian Christians. As in other former Soviet
republics ethnic diversity became problematic when the new states evolved. The mixed areas were
fought over and Armenia won the Nagorno-Karabakh area. There have since been several border
skirmishes and small wars between the two opponents but the intensity of the fighting is now
much higher than before.
In 1994 the Armenians won and forced Azerbaijan to a ceasefire. In the meantime
Nagorno-Karabakh organized itself into a sovereign country [called Artsakh] with its own
army, elected officials and parliament. But it still hasn't been recognized by any country
other than Armenia and is still classified as one of the "frozen conflicts" in the region,
along with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia.
But this "frozen conflict" may soon heat up, if you believe what Azerbaijan's
playboy/gambling addict/president, Ilham Aliyev, says. Not that Azerbaijanis should get too
excited about another war: If Armenians are still the fighters they were ten years ago, then
statistically, it's the Azeris who'll do most of the dying. While matched evenly in soldiers,
the Azeris had double the amount of heavy artillery, armored vehicles, and tanks than the
Armenians; but when it was over, the Azeri body count was three times higher then that of the
Armenians. Azeri casualties stood at 17,000. The Armenians only lost 6,000. And that's not
even counting the remaining Azeri civilians the Armenians ethnically cleansed.
Since the strategically-important Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline opened up, pumping Caspian Sea
oil to the West via Turkey, the Azeri president has been making open threats about reclaiming
Nagorno-Karabakh by force. The $10 billion in oil revenues he expects to earn per year once
the pipeline is fully operational is going to his head. $10 billion might not seem that much
-- but for Azerbaijan it constitutes a 30% spike in GDP. In every single interview, Aliyev
can't even mention the pipeline project without veering onto the subject of "resolving" the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Aliyev started spending the oil cash even before the oil started flowing and announced an
immediate doubling of military spending. A little later he announced the doubling of all
military salaries. Aliyev's generals aren't squeamish about bragging that by next year their
military budget will be $1.2 billion, or about Armenia's entire federal budget.
Over the next 14 years the war that Yasha Levine foresaw in 2006 did not happen. That it was
launched now points to an important change. In July another border skirmish broke out for still
unknown reasons. Then Turkey
stepped in :
Following the July conflict Turkey's involvement became much deeper than it had previously
been, with unprecedentedly bellicose rhetoric coming from Ankara and repeated high-level
visits between the two sides. Ankara appeared to see the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict as yet
another arena in which to exercise its growing foreign policy ambitions, while appealing to a
nationalist, anti-Armenian bloc in Turkey's domestic politics.
Turkey's tighter embrace, in turn, gave Baku the confidence to take a tougher line against
Russia, Armenia's closest ally in the conflict but which maintains close ties with both
countries. Azerbaijan heavily publicized (still unconfirmed) reports about large Russian
weapons shipments to Armenia just following the fighting, and President Ilham Aliyev
personally complained to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.
In August, Turkey and Azerbaijan completed two weeks of joint air and land military
exercises, including in the Azerbaijani enclave of Naxcivan. Some observers have questioned
whether Turkey left behind military equipment or even a contingent of troops.
The potential for robust Turkish involvement in the conflict is being watched closely by
Russia, which is already on opposing sides with the NATO member in conflicts in Libya and
Syria.
Russia sells weapons to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, but has a military base in Armenia
and favors that strategic partnership.
Azerbaijan has bought drones from Turkey and Israel and there are rumors that they are flown
by Turkish and Israeli personal. Turkey also hired
2,000 to 4,000 Sunni Jihadis from Syria to fight for the Shia Azerbaijan. A dozen of them
were already
killed on the first day of the war. One wonders how long they will be willing to be used as
cannon fodder by the otherwise hated Shia.
There were additional rumors that there are Turkish fighter jets in Azerbaijan while Turkish
spy planes look
at the air-space over Armenia from its western border.
The immediate Azerbaijani war aim is to take the
two districts Fizuli and Jabrayil in south-eastern corner of the Armenian held land:
While the core of the conflict between the two sides is the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh,
Fuzuli and Jabrayil are two of the seven districts surrounding Karabakh that Armenian forces
occupy as well. Those districts, which were almost entirely populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis
before the war, were home to the large majority of the more than 600,000 Azerbaijanis
displaced in the conflict.
While there has been some modest settlement by Armenians into some of the occupied
territories, Fuzuli and Jabrayil remain nearly entirely unpopulated.
The two districts have good farm land and Armenia, already poor, will want to keep them. It
certainly is putting up a strong fight over them.
The war has not progressed well for Azerbaijan. It has already lost dozens of tanks (vid) and hundreds
of soldiers. Internet access in the country has been completely blocked to hide the losses.
The losses do not hinder Erdogan's scribes to already
write of victory :
Defending Azerbaijan is defending the homeland. This is our political identity and conscious.
Our geopolitical mind and defense strategies are no different. Always remember, "homeland" is
a very broad concept for us!
We are not making a simple exaggeration when we say "History has been reset." We are
expecting a victory from the Caucasus as well!
Well ...
An hour ago the Armenian government
said that Turkey shot down one of its planes:
Armenia says one of its fighter jets was shot down by a Turkish jet, in a major escalation in
the conflict over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.
The Armenian foreign ministry said the pilot of the Soviet-made SU-25 died after being hit
by the Turkish F-16 in Armenian air space .
Turkey, which is backing Azerbaijan in the conflict, has denied the claim.
...
Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that its air force does not have F-16 fighter jets. However,
Turkey does.
A Turkish attack within Armenian borders would trigger the Collective Security
Treaty which obligates Russia and others to defend Armenia.
A Russian entry into the war would give Erdogan a serious headache.
But that might not even be his worst problem. The Turkish economy is shrinking, the Central
Bank has only little hard currency left, inflation is hight and the Turkish Lira continues to
fall. Today it hit a new record low .
Azerbaijan has quite a bit of oil money and may be able to help Erdogan. Money may indeed be
a part of Erdogan's motivation to take part in this war.
Russia will certainly not jump head first into the conflict. It will be very careful to not
over-extend itself and to thereby fall into a U.S. laid trap.
Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from Western and Russian sources, this report
examines Russia's economic, political, and military vulnerabilities and anxieties. It then
analyzes potential policy options to exploit them -- ideologically, economically,
geopolitically, and militarily (including air and space, maritime, land, and multidomain
options).
As one option the report discussed to over-extend
Russia (pdf) in the Caucasus:
The United States could extend Russia in the Caucasus in two ways. First, the United States
could push for a closer NATO relation-ship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia
to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia.
Alternatively, the United States could try to induce Armenia to break with Russia.
Although a long-standing Russian partner, Armenia has also developed ties with the West: It
provides troops to NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and is a member of NATO's Partnership
for Peace, and it also recently agreed to strengthen its political ties with the EU. The
United States might try to encourage Armenia to move fully into the NATO orbit. If the United
States were to succeed in this policy, then Russia might be forced to withdraw from its army
base at Gyumri and an army and air base near Yerevan (currently leased until 2044), and
divert even more resources to its Southern Military District.
The RAND report gives those options only a poor chance to succeed. But that does not not
mean that the U.S. would not try to create some additional problems in Russia's southern near
abroad. It may have given its NATO ally Turkey a signal that it would not mind if Erdogan gives
Aliyev a helping hand and jumps into anther war against Russia.
Unless Armenian core land is seriously attacked Russia will likely stay aside. It will help
Armenia with intelligence and equipment flown in through Iran. It will continue to talk with
both sides and will try to arrange a ceasefire.
Pressing Azerbaijan into one will first require some significant Armenian successes against
the invading forces. Thirty years agon the Armenians proved to be far better soldiers than the
Azeris. From what one can gain from social media material that seems to still be the case. It
will be the decisive element for the outcome of this conflict.
Posted by b on September 29, 2020 at 18:04 UTC | Permalink
div> As much as I appreciate b's conflict sitreps, I sure hope this one does not
become a recurring one..
As I reported last week, the Armenians were one of the international participants in recent
military exercises held in the Caucus region, and they frequently train with Russian troops
as CSTO members. Neither the Azeris or Armenians can really afford a conflict, although the
former have the better economic basis and have done a better job dealing with COVID. Because
of their history, Armenians are better and more tenacious in combat. Until Nagorno-Karabakh
is resolved, it will be exploited by the Outlaw US Empire.
The trouble with this kind of intimate geography, is that it is very tempting to operate
longer-range weapons or drones from the 'uncontested' portion of each country's territory,
since each home territory is theoretically out of bounds of the conflict.
The main meaningful response to a long-range or unmanned attack, targeting the source,
could then be used to blame the other side for any escalation. It seems Azerbaijan is more
comfortable with this at the moment. Assuming they end up occupying more of the contested
territory, they will end up on the receiving end of the same pattern, but either way the
result would be the same.
Besides the muddled geopolitics and heartbreaking history, it makes for a relevant study
in the state of modern drone and anti-drone systems, which will only increase in significance
going forward, as guidance systems, software integration,
networked/relay-based-communications and hard-to-detect point-to-point radio or IR comms are
all more accessible now. (for example, what would you do if you had the capacity to make ~10
million of the things a year)
Meanwhile, the radical blue ticks need some way to seem like they are superior to plebs who
might be inclined to take Armenia's side. It's all very complicated, both sides are just as
wrong you see!
"1 No side has a monopoly of justice. Both sides have historical claims to Karabakh. It
was the site of a medieval Armenian kingdom in the 12th century and an Azerbaijani (Persian
Turkic Shia) khanate in the 18th c. Both peoples have lived together here, mostly
peacefully."
But the people never changed, they were Armenian before and after the very brief period of
being a part of that Khanate (75 years, he left this out) against their will. It's all the
more surreal since the guy making the argument that 75 years of being under somebody's rule
300 years ago makes you theirs forever.
It's all the more surreal given the writers own father is from Amsterdam given.
I don't see anyone suggesting Spain has legitimate claims on Flanders and the
Netherlands.
It must be hard for bluechecks because their vaunted 'rules-based international order'
such it might ever have been said to exist with constant violation without consequence by
powerful countries is the source of the problem. Azerbaijan is only still after this
territory based on the thin logic that despite being 85-90% Armenian at it's lowest point in
the last 250 years and 100% Armenian today and being totally separated from Azerbaijan
politically, the UN still considers it's de jure Azerbaijan. The map says it's
Azerbaijan!
It is surprising seeing Erdogan who is a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic supporting a mostly Shia
Muslim country of Azerbaijan.
May be Persia should get involved to get back the land it lost during the Persian-Russo wars
!
B, it is good to see you reporting on matters that are within your area of expertise. Your
reporting on conflicts of this kind is invaluable, and I always follow your reports with
great interest.
I wish I could say the same for your recent post about Covid19, but there are aspects of
that post that are unfortunate. It is clear, for example, that you have not been following
the latest work on cross-reactive immunity--that is, the evidence that people who have not
yet been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 nevertheless have some immunity to it, due to exposure to
other corona-viruses. Nor is your overall analysis of the actual lethality of the disease
convincing--you seem to be unaware of the vast difference between young people and children,
who almost never die of Covid19, versus the elderly, who are much at risk. This has great
implications for what policies are best in dealing with the disease.
Yes NK was historically Arm going back forever. Nevertheless, the geography made defending
it impossible without occupying adjacent areas which as far as I know, were Azeri in modern
times. There are few happy answers to be found here.
As far as biases are concerned, deWaal is giving the interview to Al Jazeera, and the
network is (not surprisingly) somewhat more sympathetic to Turkish and therefore Azeri
statements on the matter, though they typically do a better job keeping a professional facade
than domestic (US) media at least. But that gives a hint.
Excellent couple of articles, 'b'. You are really on form. Thanks.
Think you are spot on regarding money and deflection. What we've seen recently from
Erdogan is vast expenditure in construction - unnecessary pandemic hospitals with
extortionate rental agreements to be met by the local authorities - and in technology - the
latest TechnoFest headed by his other 'damat' advertised significant projects to be funded by
the state, and of course oil and military: In these sectors nepotism and cronyism rule. it is
those companies close to Erdogan that reap very significant benefits. So, any earnings that
can be gleaned from Aliyev are very welcome I am sure.
The other aspect is deflection from a series of foreign policy failures, and several
serious domestic failures, one being the management of Covid currently and its obvious
manipulations and the abject failure of the online education system in which it is estimated
between 35 and 50 percent of pupils are NOT participating. The others being the economy as
'b' alluded to and the failed Greek, Libyan and Syrian situations. Other than that, the
political ground does not favour Erdogan at all and he is terrified of losing his 2023
deadline and therefore desperate to win back more of the electorate.
Turks talks about Turkey and Azerbaijan as One People, Two states - the Azeris do not say
the same. But it is a sign of just how important this is to Turks. As 'b' has mentioned, the
Turkish media is already in faitytale / victory mode - the last dreamt up report I saw
claimed that PKK were moving from Syria to Iraq and into Armenia to fight against Azeris -
and people are buying it, as they always do. Nationalism is very big in Turkey. There's a
reason why criticising a military campaign is considered a crime!
I was tempted to think that this 'conflict' would go the way of every other contrived
foreign policy foray this year, but Aliyev and Erdogan may be out to save each other's
political lives here in which case we need to consider what they're fighting to defend - very
wealthy authoritarian 'mafia states'. I do not think that Turkey would decide to push Russia
too far unless it had NATO or US backing because Turkey's economy and regional influence are
very dependent on Russia. So, I think this will be a limited show-piece that may score some
territory. What is certain is that in both Turkey and Azerbaijan, victory is already
guaranteed by the media! Does that imply a short 'conflict'?
Another aspect to remember is Iran. it has very good and important relations with both
Azerbaijan and Armenia and would no doubt fully back any Russian intervention be it
diplomatic or otherwise. It has also offered to mediate between the two. The Nagorno-Karabakh
area is very important to Iran.
So many fuses, so little time with desperate madmen on the march. As the good professor said,
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones." WWIII ain't your grandfather's World War.
R.A.
The swprs has been a constant source of Covid-19 scepticism from the outset. It is not
balanced and is full of cherry picking about its sources and analysis. It is a very serious
error to focus entirely on mortality in Covid 19 and its major effect on older people. It
does mean premature death for many. But even more seriously Covid-19 causes serious morbidity
and together with a high infectious rate leads to very sharp swamping of health systems,
major loss of front line workers because of illness and serious health and economic effects
independent of the mortality. Focussing on mortality of elderly only is a narrow view and
ignores why Covid 19 is such a serious pandemic.
Was lacking some of the details and depth of B's report but it was clear Erdogan is running
point on another Nato led shit sandwich on Russia's doorstep and a blatant 'damned if you do,
damned if you don't' trap laid out for Putin.
What's the bet if Russia supports Armenia the media will paint this as 'Russian
aggression' on poor Azerbaijan and an invasion of their sovereign territory? The region is
technically still part of Azerbaijan. Yet when all the first videos showed Azeri drones
striking Armenian tanks in defensive dugouts, while Armenian footage showed ATGM's striking
Azeri armour maneuvering in open fields, it doesn't take a genius to work out who the
aggressor was... but facts should never get in the way of a good narrative when it comes to
Nato..
Another frozen conflict would be just the ticket to drain more resources from Russia, not
to mention, the potential for instability and refugees right on Iran's doorstep would be too
much for the US not to want to invest in. Combine that with Erdogan's megalomania, and he'll
be happy to add 15% on all munitions charged to Azerbaijan to help plug some of his budget
holes, no doubt.
Luckily I'm no military strategist, but when i hear things like this i can't help wonder
if some good old 'domestic terrorism' or missiles flying into Baku, Washington or Istanbul
are just what is needed for these psychopaths to be brought to the negotiating table nice and
early and avoid a lot of human misery... It is just crazy to think we have leaders who
actually start wars in order to poke Russia in the eye... one wonders, since they know
exactly who is doing what and why, what sort of payback that may bring one day.
There is no doubt that Nagorno-Karabakh is traditionally part of Azerbaijan and only got
claimed by Armenia after a surfeit of Armenians invaded the territory since the end of WW1.
All in all a very similar situation to that which developed in Serbia vis a vis the invasion
of Kosovo by Albanians.
MOA has consistently stood against the internationally illegal Kosovo enclave, so why the
contradiction with Nagorno-Karabakh?
Surely it cannot be because of ideological reasons i.e. Armenia is 'good guys' &
Azerbaijan are bad guys? That is precisely the type of logical inconsistency which causes
wars.
Azerbaijan is in a tough enough situation with Armenia block the creation of a contiguous
nation with Armenia's takeover of the south of Azerbaijan up to the Iranian border. If you
look at the first map provided you will see an unlabelled black blob up against the Iranian
border a part of Azerbaijan which has been deliberately isolated by Armenia from the rest of
Azerbaijan.
This report sounds like something out of the NYT or Guardian next you'll be claiming with
zero evidence that there are Turkey funded terrorists brought in from Idlib just as the
guardian has been claiming.
Another motivation for Ottoman Sultan wannabe Erdogan may be the possibility of extending
Turkish influence (and by implication his and his family's) through Azerbaijan and the
Caspian Sea into Central Asia all the way to and into ... Xinjiang in NW China, with the
potential for Uyghur terrorists, nurtured by Turkish propaganda, money and arms, to get a
free ride through Central Asia and straight into any future conflict zones Turkey might want
to open up in Iranian Azerbaijan and all Iran's northern and eastern border areas with
Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.
Of course this will have US, UK, EU (possibly) and Israeli blessing if it means Turkey
will have to do most of the heavy lifting of money transactions.
thanks b.... seeing erdogan involved here makes sense.. at some point, someone is going to
take him out to bring peace back to the area.... until then he is a useful tool..
@ debs....thanks for your comments.. perhaps b will respond to them?? i agree with et tu,
the narrative the msm will spin here will tell us a lot..
@Jen
If I remember rightly, and I'll try to find the reports, it was claimed back in July that
Erdogan had offered to send Syrian militias to help defend Azerbaijan.
What makes you think the claim is unfounded?
The jihadists left in N.Syria are a serious problem for Turkey, so it would nake perfect
sense to try to 'liquidate' them in contrived 'conflicts'.
When did that "invasion of Kosovo by Albanians" did happen? You seem so pretty sure of it
that it makes me wonder if you are the creator of history itself, so you just invented it,
and believe it.
The solution would be to give back the adjacent territories that border Azerbaijan to
Azerbaijan and maybe pay some kind of nominal compensation to the displaced in return for
normalisation. They are to my knowledge much like parts of the buffer zone in Cyprus, full of
abandoned towns and villages. (Some of which you can see tanks using for cover in the
videos)
But the Caucuses are the Caucuses are grudges are grudges. Can't turn back the clock so
it's all or nothing, one side loses and one side wins.
Then you have all the exclaves and enclaves to deal with, which ironically, haven't become
an issue yet at all, probably because it would involve attacks on Armenia proper. Though
there has already been one strike in Armenia proper of a bus that was set to carry Armenian
solders.
1. It is obvious that the current aggravation was not accidental, but prepared in advance.
2. Possible goals for Turkey:
> Anchoring Turkey in Azerbaijan - the creation of full-fledged turkish military
bases.
> Inclusion of Azerbaijan in the Turkish orbit of influence (thesis "two countries -
one nation", in which Turkey assumes supremacy) within the framework of the concept of
neo-Ottomanism and (pseudo-)leadership of Turkey in the Turkic world.
> Economic goals and energy projects (Azerbaijani oil, gas) as part of the Turkish plan
to turn the country into an energy supplier.
> Given the circumstances (Ukrainian black hole, Belarusian problem, coronavirus,
spectacle with Navalny, threat to Nord Stream-2 etc), involve Russia in the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, thereby tying Russia's hands in the Caucasus direction in
order to act more freely and boldly in other theaters (the Mediterranean conflict with
Greece, Syria, Libya...), given the problematic position of Turkey (simultaneous war on
several fronts and the almost complete absence of assistants/allies). In this situation, the
Nagorno-Karabakh leverage/'trump card' in the hands of Turkey would be useful for
negotiations with Russia.
The latter assumption is probably the main one.
@Debsisdead, #16
There is no doubt that Nagorno-Karabakh is traditionally part of Azerbaijan
Funny.
Actually, this territory - Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan - have been
the territory (or "property", if you will) of Russia for the last 200-250 years.
Interesting historic fact. As long as the centre (USSR) held, the facts on the ground held,
much like the other areas of conflicts in Georgia, Ukraine and Transnistria. With the end of
the USSR, everything changed. This is what Putin meant when he called the breakup of the USSR
as disaster. And NATO will continue to poke a stick at these vulnerabilities. Are the people
of Armenia really that stupid that they see anything positive from joining NATO? Like that
will protect them against Turkey. They can see how Greece is treated. Hopefully this conflict
will put to bed any thought of Armenia being pried away from Russia.
Stalin's Legacy: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Nagorno-Karabakh is a highly contested, landlocked region in the South Caucasus of the
former Soviet Union. The present-day conflict has its roots in the decisions made by Joseph
Stalin when he was the acting Commissar of Nationalities for the Soviet Union during the
early 1920s. In April 1920, Azerbaijan was taken over by the Bolsheviks; Armenia and Georgia
were taken over in 1921. To garner public support, the Bolsheviks promised Karabakh to
Armenia. At the same time, in order to placate Turkey, the Soviet Union agreed to a division
under which Karabakh would be under the control of Azerbaijan. With the Soviet Union firmly
in control of the region, the conflict over the region died down for several decades.
As #12 seems to be implying as well, b is ignoring this region is the backyard of another
regional powerhouse: Iran.
Any involvement from the US in Iran's backguard will be gladly countertargeted so that
automatically means Turkey has very big ambitions to join this battle. This could very well
end up in straight war if the diplomatic channels of mainly Russia are not effective
enough..
I've read somewhere that only English wankers call Iran "Persia". Iran lost those
territories when the Turkic Qajar incompetents were ruling Iran (in a fashion).
It is informative to look into Qajar Iran. They somehow managed to take a Safavid (also
Turkic) Iran from a fairly respectable state to the lowest state that Iran has likely been in
its entire 3000+ year history. It is amazing what the Pahlavis managed to do to resurrect
Iran in the short 50 turbulent years a Persian dynasty finally got to run Iran after
centuries.
As to Sultan of Turkey making noises about Azar (Fire) PaadGaan (Guardians) being the
homeland of the 'multi-faceted' spawn of the displaced Mongols of Turkistan, he can go and
suck the Tsar of All Russians and Minions prick, again.
--
Interesting that "B" claims (without any proof whatsoever) that Russia intends to use Iran
as a channel to transport arms to Armenia. Iran's media already has come out and has denied
reports by "foreign media" to say such things. I guess that includes you, Moon Of
Alabama.
--
Also interesting that the apparently very capable Turkish drone being used is not
discussed here at Moon of Alabama. When did this place turn into the New York Times? What's
next, B, a Pulitzer?
Since the bar keep is not sharing links to vidoes released by Azerbaijan's military
showing multiple distinct drone hits on Armenian armour, then I won't either. But it is just
a few clicks away.
--
Finally, this situation is a touchy one for Iran, aka as "Persia" amongst the wankers and
related sorts. Will the "Muslim" revolutionaries, the children of Ayatollah cum Imam of
"Persians" (lol) yet again choose infidels as waali, if they think this will permit them to
warm the throne of Jamshid and the Hidden Imam and wisely rule and chart the destiny of
"Persians"? The answer to that is answered by noting that no one has ever accused the Mullahs
of "Persia" to be impractical men. Unholy, sure, some. But impractical, estaghforallah!
"..Actually, this territory - Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan - have been
the territory (or "property", if you will) of Russia for the last 200-250 years." alaff@22
A very good point. These countries have never been independent states. In 1918, under
western influence, and led by mensheviks Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan formed the
Trans-Caucasian Republic. My guess is that by the end of the Soviet era secularism dominated
all three societies and religious disputes were largely forgotten.
One historical grudge very much alive is that of the Armenian genocide at the hands of the
Turks, a century ago.
Sorry grump one, I just got back from my wednesday morning doctor's run where I pick up some
locals from around the area & run them to the Drs in town.
I hope that this conflict won't get characterised as a religious conflict, because that
isn't really what it is about.
Armenians fled east during WW1 in direct response to the genocidal attacks on Armenians by
Turks, so that should be easy eh? Blame the Turks, but it isn't that easy because of the
French & Englanders machinations when sequestering all the assets of the Ottoman
empire.
Right the way through WW1 which was at heart a war over assets for empires, even the spark
that lit the fuse was caused by the Austro-Hungarian Empire's lust for grabbing Serbia &
including it in their repressive empire, all the politicians & bureaucrats to empire of
the 'big' nations, spent a lot more time and energy divvying up their hoped for imperial
gains, than they ever spent on concern about the generation of young men being forced through
the meat grinders.
There were 3 big nations on the winning side France, England & Russia, yet
Sykes Picot is a secret agreement between only two of the triumvirate. Many suppose this
is because Russia pulled out of WW1 after the October revolution, that is not correct as this
secret agreement was signed in May 1916, 18 months before the Bolshevik soviet uprising.
England & France were doing the dirty on Russia even while the Tsar was the
bossfella.
Perfidious Albion seems to be the one most responsible as it has always claimed that a
similarly secret deal England made with Russia, unbeknownst to France had been completed. A
deal whereby England would grab the oil rich Mesopotamia & all the rest of Arabian
peninsular in return for Russia getting Constantinople and most of Anatolia.
That seems unlikely since England and France had already spilt the blood of 213,980
French, English Australian, New Zealand & Canadian troops on the Dardanelles in pursuit of an
invasion and eventual takeover of Constantinople which england had begun planning since back
in 1905! Long before WW1. Winston Churchill in particular had been advocating this for more
than a decade because he wanted to deny Russia easy access to the mediterranean.
A lie was told to the fatally foolish Tsar - it was that the anglo-french invasion of
southern Turkey was to be a distraction that would require Turkey & Germany/Austria to
divert troops from the eastern front thereby relieving pressure on Imperial Russia's
armies.
So what? How does that effect Nagorno-Karabakh? Well it does, because after england
screwed up at the Dardanelles, they then encouraged Armenians to take up arms against the
Ottomans, all the while knowing that despite promises to the contrary, if the Armenians came
unstuck against the 'easybeat' Turks, there would be no way of helping the Armenians out.
That is what happened of course. Kemal Attaturk the bloke who had overseen Gallipoli &
england's send off was sent to oversee the fight against Armenian guerillas and the Armenians
got monstered, so fled eastwards some as far as into the mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The situation is even more complicated by the fact that after WW1 ended and elites all
over europe were crazed with anxiety about a 'red' takeover of Europe, 'the west' kicked up
even more trouble. By financing a mob oops sorry, army, of so-called white russians to resist
the USSR in the South Western Caucasus, it meant that the USSR was unable to exert full
control of the region for nearly 5 years. This is why as Tom says at #24 it wasn't until 1921
that the Soviet Union could credibly promise Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, a blatant bribe to
encourage the warring parties to talk not shoot, but really it was more like 1923 when the
USSR got total control of the region.
I point out the mess that previous interference has caused because it is vital that
history not repeat itself in that regard. If it does, then all that will result will be a
conflict held in abeyance for a time until it flares up again.
There are two issues people & geography, maybe the boss of Azerbaijan is an arsehole
who is trying to get back onside with Azerbaijanis by cranking up a conflict that is close to
the hearts of most citizens because every time they look at a map they are confronted by the
injustice of their nation cleaved in two. His alleged arseholery does not diminish the
genuine injustice Azerbaijanis feel in their bones.
That is one group of people, the other group are the relatively small number of Armenians
squatting illegally on Azerbaijani land.
The easiest way to fix the geography & people issue is for those Armenians to be
relocated into decent accommodation within Armenia and return Nagorno-Karabakh plus a land
corridor that rejoins Azerbaijan once again.
It will be complex to resolve as there will also be an issue with Armenians who have occupied
the space between the two parts of Azerbaijan, but however much it costs, that is bound to be
less than the cost of airplanes, rockets & artillery shells that will be expended keeping
the conflict bubbling away.
Turkish officials are preparing for the worst case scenario as talks in Ankara made clear
that Moscow doesn't want a new deal
####
This is a Turkey sympathetic piece but may be one reason for current events between
Armenia and Azerbaidjan. As for Syria, Turkey has been claiming to keep the north/Idlib under
control which is has until the last few weeks at it has used the previous time to reinforce
its military presence ('observation posts') – vis Vinyard the Saker – and now
claims it is not reponsible and its not fair that Russia reacts to attacks by its re-dressed
(literally) jihadists. Turkey's preference is of course to do nothing despite the all the
attacks, and that in itself explains a lot. Turkey is now publicly putting out its argument
in advance that it is 'Russia wot broke the agreement' and thus 'we are not responsible for
any of the consequences.' Erd O'Grand is due another significant spanking. Would he call NATO
to his defense as he did before? Certainly. Will it happen? No. Not to mention his current
intreagues around Cyprus and pissing of the French, Greeks and others. Trouble t'mill.
Despite Turkey's efforts to maintain the status quo in Idlib, a Russian-backed Syrian
assault seems increasingly likely.
####
In short, Turkey has not kept up its side of the deal of bringing the rebels under control
and the supposed opening and joint patrols of the M4 & M5 highways has been suspended by
Russia because of the attacks by rebadged jihadis. Turkey has clearly used the agreement to
simply buy time for another 'cunning plan' and as no interest in fulfiling the agreement with
Russia. The latter's patience is almost gone.
"... The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades. Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all. ..."
"... Screw the war mongers and the MIC. ..."
"... If you read the article, it's obvious that [neo]liberals/whores are the apogee of hypocrisy. ..."
"... Perpetual war is about $$$. It knows no party. Never has and never will. ..."
Feral, yes; rabid, absolutely; smart... not so much. Why is anyone surprised?
The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated
to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves
that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades.
Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all.
Yup. It's always about the money. As Fitts would say, that screeching you hear is the cash flow drying up for the rentiers.
The murdering of women and children be damned. Hillary's demonic cackle is but the grotesque cherry on top:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
During the last weeks there was news that Turkey was hiring some
2,000 'Syrian rebels' to fight in
Azerbaijan against Armenian forces which since 1993 occupy Nagorno- Karabakh . Earlier today the
Azerbaijan forces and the mercenaries launched
their attack on Armenian lines. It was a massacre. Two Azerbaijani helicopters were shot
down. Some 10 tanks and armored troop transporters went up in flames . Azerbaijani
artillery hit some civilian structures in Stepankert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Turkish(?) drones hit Armenia front positions .
The Azerbaijani tactic seems to be to bunch up a lot of their tanks in the open field and to
wait for the Armenian artillery to destroy them. Russian troops are stationed in Armenia and
additional heavy support from Russia was flown in today . But Russia is
friendly with both countries and is already urging for an armistice. Armenia has mobilized its
forces and reinforcements are moving towards the front.
This is now, after Syrian and Libya, the third country in which the wannabe Sultan of Turkey
is trying to fight Russian supported forces. It ain't gonna work. But Erdogan has to keep on
doing that as a domestic diversion because the Turkish economy has screeched to a halt. The
recent central bank
rate hike is unlikely to stop the loss of the Lira but will deepen the recession.
The situation might well escalated from here on. There will be a lot of disinformation
coming from both sides.
Posted by b on September 27, 2020 at 12:55 UTC |
Permalink
Azerbaijan can't lift a finger without Ottoman backing. Armenia is traditionally a Russian
ally, and even though the current regime is wooing Amerikastan, it can't survive without
Russian protection. In any regular war Armenia will smash Azerbaijan flat but the Ottomans
are guaranteed to get involved. Now Russia and the Ottomans are on different sides in Libya
of course, Russia would back Greece in any conflict with Ankara, and increasingly Russia is
getting fed up with Ottoman attempts to annex North Syria. I can only surmise that this is an
Ottoman warning to Russia.
The claim the Azeri tanks were just sitting in a field waiting to be smashed by Russian
artillery etc. actually sounds like the Russians attacking first. The aggressor usually has
the initiative and thus usually has operational success in the opening round. It's
theoretically possible that a Russian artillery offensive was on high alert, waiting to
launch after a suitable "incident" which could be represented as an Azeri assault. Whatever
the value of mercenaries from a losing war, a few weeks is very unlikely to permit meaningful
incorporation into an actual fighting force. Therefore it is highly unlikely that their
reinforcement was the enabling cause of an Azeri assault.
It is a strange and marvelous world, where wonders delightful and horrible abound. So it
is barely possible the Azeris are terminally stupid, the underlying theory of the post. I
would still say that it's *not* because non-Christians are stupid. More likely it's because
the Azeris are getting their military advice from their friends the Russians.
IMO this reigniting of an old conflict comes as response to recent Kavkas 2020 maneuvers
organized by Russia which are taking place right now, with the participation of Armenia, and
also as response of last meeting between Zarif and Lavrov, in whose presser Lavrov was quite
explicit, at least more than before...
This comes, in the first place, as a new hot front ( apart from Belarus ) in the
post-Soviet space to implicate Russia and make her choose amongst two neighbors she gets
along with quite well, and at the same time, the transport of Syrian jihadi mercenary forces
in a charter flight by Turkey imply that a new abcess the size and type of Idlib is planned
to be inserted in the viccinity of both Russia and Iran, which will act as destablization
force for future incursions after US elections...
As we talk Azerbaijan is announcing advances in the Southern front and the take over of
some localities along Iranian border ...Why? What that has to do with Armenia? To implant
there the jihadis for the coming "proxy war" on Iran, the same way they were implanted in
Syria/Turkey northern East and West border and Syria/Lebanon Southern border...
Turkey here acting as US proxy PMC to position US managed and funded jihadi forces, as it has
done in Syria and Lybia...
Also the conflict comes to shoot two, or three, birds with the same shot by starting
another military conflict or destabilization process in the Silk & Road path...
This is the US MIC reasuring their rate of profit for the coming US presidency by
extending the perpetual war...
Although may well be that they will not even wait for the elections results...
On the importance of this new conflict and its obvious connection with Iran...See map in
thread linked above...Some more sources...Probable objective of past "color revolution" in
Armenia...on the grounds of "alleged" US chaotic state...chaos in the US acts as veil for its
own population ( so as thvey can not think of continuously started wars while they cop with
the immeidate miserable oticome of the pandemic...) and for opponents... who may think of
relaxing...Fortunately, Gerasimov, and IRGC, are always attentive...
THE SECOND WAR OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAJ HAS BREAKED In red the disputed region, in the center
of which is Stefankert, the capital. In blue the areas supposedly conquered by #Azerbaiyan.
Everything indicates that the Azeri offensive began by surprise in the early hours of
today, and has maintained a reasonable pace of advance
On the visible hand of Turkey in this reginition...no way Turkey is moving without NATO
consent...and even support...recall "international coalition of the willing to fight ISIS in
Syria"...which then turned into ISIS proxy war onto Syrian state and population...
I have
been checking and Azerbaijan announced in June that they were interested in buying TB2 from
Turkey. In no way have they been able to buy, receive and put the drones into operation in
such a short time. It starts to get cloudy.
Twitter turco está diciendo abiertamente que son sus drones. Mientras Clash Report,
que ya se ha comentado muchas veces que podría estar ligada a la inteligencia truca
(por el acceso que tienen a cierto material informativo) habla de que los drones son
Bayraktar TB2.
Shooting is common in Upper Karabakh...but not in Down Karabakh...this conflict as part of
war on Russian gas supply to Europe...
Although shooting is common in Upper Karabakh, a disputed area between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, this is the fastest escalation in recent times. Just hours after the last
incident, Armenia has declared martial law and total mobilization.
Let's not think that this is simply a local conflict between two countries: Azerbaijan
is backed by Turkey, while Armenia is backed by Russia. And to this we can add the natural
gas that comes to Europe from the Caspian.
In case someone wants to follow, Youtube channel of Armenian TV which sometimes biradcast
in Englisgh language...
In case anyone is interested in following him from the origin, YouTube channel with a live
signal from an Armenian television (at times they speak in English)
Well, sorry, posting too fast, as I must go now, and without time to check two
times...
It seems that tweets by #DragonLadyU2 got middle trnaslated...Repost correctly and with
blockquote, as it is not, as it could seem by the size of letter, info of mine, but of this
account who is following the issue of Azerbaijani drones purchase...
I was introducing it as:
On the visible hand of Turkey in this reginition...no way Turkey is moving without NATO
consent...and even support...recall "international coalition of the willing to fight ISIS in
Syria"...which then turned into ISIS proxy war onto Syrian state and population...
I have been checking and Azerbaijan announced in June that they were interested in buying
TB2 from Turkey. In no way have they been able to buy, receive and put the drones into
operation in such a short time. It starts to get cloudy.
Turkish Twitter is openly saying that it is their drones. While Clash Report, which has
already been commented many times that it could be linked to Turkish intelligence (due to
the access they have to certain informative material), talks about the drones being
Bayraktar TB2.
On preparations for this conflict, and who provoked whom...also reflected some intends of
transforming this inot religious conflict...which then would reginite the whole Caucasus and
Caspian region, and thus would end implying Iran and Russia...and probably palcing them in
different sides...which could be one of the objectives, to put a breach into very good
Russian/Iranian relations...Beware...
I'm reminded Israeli bizjet associated w secret flights was in Baku, Azerbaijan 3 days ago.
Landed back in Israel along w Azeri ministry of defense cargo
I have not been able to verify the arrival of Syrian fighters from the Turkish-backed
factions (SNA) in Azerbaijan as of now. I can confirm that dozens of fighters from NW Syria
(outside of regime control) left Syria via Turkey in an unknown direction about a week ago.
Families lost touch with these men since their departure. Rumored destinations include
Azerbaijan, Qatar, Turkey and Libya. I am in touch with families & friends of men who
left and will report once they manage to get in touch with their loved-ones.
About a month ago, rumors spread on WhatsApp among SNA fighters that they can register
to go to Azerbaijan. Many registered over WhatsApp, others apparently thru offices in the
Turkish-controlled areas.
The fighters registered due to the enticing rumored salaries of $2K-$2.5K
The SNA mercenaries who've gone to fight in Libya against Haftar were recruited with
direct involvement by Turkish officers who met with commanders of the SNA factions to
pressure them to send fighters. With the alleged Azerbaijan recruitment, there haven't been
such meetings.
It seems likely that the recruitment is being carried out by a Turkish private security
company that is also involved in shipping Syrians to fight in Libya. There is no need to
apply pressure on Syrians to leave anymore. The number of men wanting to go far exceeds
demand.
With time, the idea of being deployed oversees as a mercenary is becoming more socially
acceptable in Syria, in both communities residing outside of regime control (men in Idlib
have registered to go to Azerbaijan too) and in regime areas (where men are going to fight
for Haftar)
Syrian lives are regarded as expendable, with Syria serving as an arena to settle
geostrategic scores at Syrians' expense. Syrians resisted & still resist this logic,
but the collapse of the economy is prompting many Syrians to be willing to sell themselves
to the highest bidder.
div> I think that Jihadists have no nationality, therefore it is wrong to
label them as "Syrian"!
(1) re: tanks bunched up - the linked Armenian MOD twitter-video with the cheesy music and
2 tank hits ( this one ) suggests it is not
artillery? Recently dug cover beind them, but tanks mostly facing toward camera. Bulldozer
still there. Direct hits. You can see from the reaction of the tanks what they think is the
direction from which they were attacked. After the first hit, the next tank to be hit
attempted (unsuccessfully) to hide behind the remains of the tank already destroyed. The
others which were not already facing that way, turn their turrets toward the camera, which is
the direction from which they think they were attacked. They start making smokescreen as the
clip ends.
(2) We really don't need to see a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
(3) I don't really get the geopolitics of this. For Turkish strategic motivations, the
relevant oil/gas pipeline does not pass thru the contested territory although is quite close.
Not sure what to make of that. Map
here , with Nagorno-Karabakh colored in under Azerbaijan. Turkey is in danger of being
bypassed by Greece-Cyprus-Israel pipeline, how does this this help them in any way?
(4) For US-Iran conflict, just seems like general chaos. Perhaps there is a land route
from Russia-Georgia-Iran, but it can't be as good as the caspian sea route.
(5) for Greece-Cyprus pipeline, there may be a commercial benefit, if the reliability of
the Azerbaijan-Turkey route comes into question due to war or instability.
Looks like Turkey has gone rogue. Since the 2016 assassination attempt, Erdogan doesn't
trust NATO anymore.
As for (3), it's very straightforward: Turkey probably wants some symmetrical leverage
against Russia against the FUBARed situation in Idlib (which is draining Turkish coffers and
soldiers). They are probably very desperate, and are looking for something on these lines:
"look, Russia, you give us Idlib and we let Nagorno-Karabakh alone the next day. Deal?".
The Azeris making advances is to be expected if they had the aggressor's initiative. The post
implies the Armenians are winning handily, which is not to be expected when a prepared Azeri
offensive kicks off.
Armenia has long been on the US Regime Change hitlist - June/July 2015, July 2017, April 2018
when the Random Guy Pashinyan was imposed as leader. He has the tricky task of balancing the
demands of his owners versus the reality of Armenian interests.
p>
Post a comment Name:
Email:
URL: Allowed HTML Tags:
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
Sunday saw huge clashes erupt between the armies of Armenia and Azerbaijan along the already
militarized and disputed Nagorno-Karabakh border region. An official state of war in the region
has been declared by Yerevan.
"Early in the morning, around 7 a.m. the Azerbaijani forces launched a large-scale
aggression, including missile attacks..." Armenia's Defense Ministry stated Sunday. Armenia has
since reportedly declared martial law and a "total military mobilization" in what looks to be
the most serious escalation between the two countries in years.
Air and artillery attacks from both sides ramped up, with each side blaming the other for
the start of hostilities, while international powers urge calm. Crucially, civilians have
already been killed on either side by indiscriminate shelling . At least a dozen soldiers on
either side have also been reported killed.
Armenia's high command has ordered all troops throughout the country to muster and report to
their bases : "I invite the soldiers appointed in the forces to appear before their military
commissions in the regions," a statement said.
Armenia's military has released footage of significant tank warfare in progress. The below
is said to be Armenian army forces destroying Azerbaijani tanks:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/-mJffVrtPLk
And here's more from Sunday's fighting:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D2jd1bw0AXQ?start=9
The recent conflict hearkens back to 2016, but before that to post-Soviet times. Christian
Armenia and Muslim Azerbaijan fought a war at that time in which at least 200 people were
killed over Armenian ethnic breakaway Nagorno Karabakh, which declared independence in 1991,
despite being internationally recognized as within Azerbaijan territory .
Dozens of civilians have already been injured Sunday in the major flare-up of fighting, as
CNN reports :
While Armenia said it was responding to missile attacks launched by its neighbor Sunday,
Azerbaijan blamed Armenia for the clashes.
In response to the alleged firing of projectiles by Azerbaijan, Armenian Prime Minister
Nikol Pashinyan tweeted that his country had "shot down 2 helicopters & 3 UAVs, destroyed
3 tanks."
Multiple dramatic battlefield videos are circulating on social media confirming the
large-scale deployment of tanks, artillery units, and airpower . Multiple Azerbaijani soldiers
have been
reported killed, but it's as yet unclear what casualty numbers could be.
Turkey's role in new fighting is attracting scrutiny. Its foreign ministry blamed Armenia
and called for it to halt military operations, however, it hardly appears to be a mere outside
or 'neutral' observer, given
new widespread reports Turkey has transferred 'Syrian rebel' units to join the fighting on
Azerbaijan's side .
These reports of Turkish supplied Syrian mercenaries began days ago, in what regional
analysts predicted would be a huge escalation in hostilities in the Caucuses.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan
late in the day slammed Turkey's meddling in the conflict . Ankara had called Armenia "an
obstacle" to peace after the fresh hostilities broke out. Yerevan has now formally confirmed
Turkey is supplying fighters .
Given the number of vital oil and gas infrastructure facilities and pipelines in the region
, impact on global markets could be seen as early as Monday.
"At least 16 military and several civilians were killed on Sunday in the heaviest clashes
between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 2016, reigniting concern about stability in the South
Caucasus, a corridor for pipelines carrying oil and gas to world markets," Reuters reports.
Azerbaijan has also declared an official state of martial law while clashes between the
armies are unfolding.
Meanwhile footage has emerged showing Armenia's nationwide mustering of its national and
reserve forces :
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"Pipelines shipping Caspian oil and natural gas from Azerbaijan to the world pass close to
Nagorno-Karabakh,"
Reuters reports. "Armenia also warned about security risks in the South Caucasus in July
after Azerbaijan threatened to attack Armenia's nuclear power plant as possible retaliation
."
The fighting is expected to grow fiercer along front lines in the disputed region into the
night as the prospect of a full 'state of war' is looming between the historic rivals.
As Americans pause to remember the tragic events of September 11, 2001 which saw almost 3,000 innocents killed in the worst terror
attack in United States history, it might also be worth contemplating the
horrific wars and foreign quagmires unleashed during the subsequent 'war on terror'.
Bush's so-called Global War on Terror targeted 'rogue states' like Saddam's Iraq, but also consistently had a focus on uprooting
and destroying al-Qaeda and other armed Islamist terror organizations (this led to the falsehood that Baathist Saddam and AQ were
in cahoots). But the idea that Washington from the start saw al-Qaeda and its affiliates as some kind of eternal enemy is largely
a myth.
Recall that the US covertly supported the Afghan mujahideen and other international jihadists throughout the 1980's Afghan-Soviet
War, the very campaign in which hardened al-Qaeda terrorists got their start. In 1999 The Guardian in a rare moment of honest
mainstream journalism warned of the Frankenstein
the CIA created -- among their ranks a terror mastermind named Osama bin Laden .
But it was all the way back in 1993 that a then classified intelligence memo warned that the very fighters the CIA previously
trained would soon turn their weapons on the US and its allies. The 'secret' document was declassified in 2009, but has remained
largely obscure in mainstream media reporting, despite being the first to contain a bombshell admission.
"support network that funneled money, supplies, and manpower to supplement the Afghan mujahidin" in the war against the Soviets,
"is now contributing experienced fighters to militant Islamic groups worldwide."
The concluding section contains the most revelatory statements, again remembering these words were written nearly
a decade before the 9/11 attacks :
US support of the mujahidin during the Afghan war will not necessarily protect US interests from attack.
...Americans will become the targets of radical Muslims' wrath. Afghan war veterans, scattered throughout the world, could
surprise the US with violence in unexpected locales.
There it is in black and white print: the United States government knew and bluntly acknowledged that the very militants
it armed and trained to the tune of hundreds
of millions of dollars would eventually turn that very training and those very weapons back on the American people .
And this was not at all a "small" or insignificant group, instead as The Guardian wrote a mere
two years before 9/11 :
American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla
warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up .
But don't think for a moment that there was ever a "lesson learned" by Washington.
Instead the CIA and other US agencies repeated the 1980s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow US enemy regimes in places like
Libya and Syria even long after the "lesson" of 9/11. As War on The Rocks recounted :
Despite the passage of time, the issues Ms. Bennett raised in her
1993 work continue to be relevant today.
This fact is a sign of the persistence of the problem of Sunni jihadism and the "wandering mujahidin." Today, of course, the problem
isn't Afghanistan but Syria. While the war there is far from over, there is already widespread nervousness, particularly in Europe,
about what will happen when the
foreign fighters return from that conflict.
"... He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish? ..."
"... And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries? ..."
"... My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. ..."
"... Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank. ..."
"... If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots. ..."
"... The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades. ..."
"... Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan. ..."
"... The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it. ..."
"... There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones. ..."
"... I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern. ..."
"... Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy. ..."
"... When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause. ..."
"... But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice. ..."
"... the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables ..."
"... The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. ..."
It is clear that the heat has gone away in the fabled "Arab Street" over the issue of
Israel. If that were not so, the rulers would not have dared to do this. That being so ... It
will be very interesting to see how many people from these two countries go to Israel to
visit holy sites like the al-Aqsa Mosque. There have not been many religious tourists from
Egypt and Jordan. This is what the Israelis call pilgrims. Trump thinks that he can bring
Saudi Arabia into such a deal? Good! Let's see it. He thinks that Iran can be brought into
such a deal? Wonderful! Let's see it.
He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that
something we should relish?
And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad
two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of
Pompeo and Jeffries?
I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the
UAE.
I suspect this has less to do with peace and more to do with lining up a coalition against
Iran. He's signing peace deals at the white house the same day he not only threatens Iran for
a make believe assassination plot against our South African Ambassador, but admits he wanted
to assassinate Assad.
He's making a big mistake though if he thinks Iranians will behave and respond similarly
to the Arabs, and they are certainly not North Koreans.
He's being frog marched into a war with Iran while his ego is being stroked under the
guise of a Nobel peace prize.
What say about Alastair Crooke's "Maintaining Pretence Over Reality: 'Simply Put, the
Iranians Outfoxed the U.S. Defence Systems'" at Strategic Culture Foundation?
My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how
much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and
Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. The other issue is the degree with which Arab
elites can "reroute" Anti Israeli into Anti Iranian sentiments on the Arab street.
Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza
=! West Bank.
If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit
Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress
and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the
higher helots.
I think this will be fairly hard though. Various Historical, religion and cultural issues
specific to the situation make it quite hard for Arabs to actually assimilate into Israeli
society. There is also a lack of a unifying foe to unite against. If you look at relatively
successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was
threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause.
The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a
little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and
away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades.
The TDS afflicted media couldn't bear that some lemonade was made. Wolf Blitzer
interviewing Jared Kushner was all about pandemic nothing about the implications or process
to having couple gulf sheikhs recognize Israel. The fact is that these gulf sheikhs only paid
lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in any case. This formalizes what was reality.
The "Arab Street" have always been a manifestation of whatever were powerful manipulations.
The manipulators have been coopted in the current lemonade making. In any case Bibi must be
very pleased. He didn't have to give up anything in his difficult domestic political
predicament.
The arabs simply do not care anymore, from Morocco to Oman. Their spirit totally broken by
the "Arab spring", youth disillusioned and jobless. The only dream left for most is to ape
the western lifestyle. The others are fighting in wars.
I can see one of two futures, a Clean Break: Securing the Realm-style one in which all of the arabs live life as helots under the
thumb of a Greater Israel. This would bring relative economic prosperity to most of the
helots.
I think I see the flaw in this article: ..."If that turns out to be the case and this
maneuver succeeds in ultimately bringing about a two state solution for Israel and the
Palestinians,"...
Surely you don't believe that these maneuvers are intended to bring about a Palestinian
state?
The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab
states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but
closes to it.
There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst
the less accurate ones.
One running theme that I have been seeing from the former so-called neocon critics and ME
wars opponents (Michael Scheuer comes to mind) is their uncontrollable exhilaration for any
terrible so-called F.P. 'success' that the Trump admin achieves in the ME.
I also remember
when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it
a national security success. This is shameful pattern.
Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz
(Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians
United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American
interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this
outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy.
It it exactly what it is. Israel normalized relations with the most notorious
dictatorships and wants to implement Pegasus spying program and wide-scale surveillance
(among other nefarious things) in UAE and Bahrain. How is that a success for America? America
should stay out of these Israeli-first trouble making schemes and stay neutral or out of
there.
Let me tell you what a F.P. success is, OK? It would have been a huge success if America
was able to lure Iran into its orbit to fend of the Chinese communists out of the region and
out of our lives and have a stronger alliance with regards to its upcoming Cold War with
China.
It would have been successful for America to balance China out with Iran, India,
Turkey and Afghanistan, and not let China to invest billions in Haifa port (close to U.S.
military forces there) a major hub of its Belt and Road initiative and a huge blow to U.S.
new Cold war effort against China.
Think about it.
Allow me to raise a few points: first of all , every single one of these brutal backward
Arab dictatorships has had low key but crucial relations with Israel since the Cold War and
they just made it open, Big deal! Second, this joyfulness for a hostile anti-american country
is quite sad for two reasons:
1. that Larry touts it as a success for America, which is
anything but a success for America. It is a success for Bibi and Trump's evangelical/zionist
sugar daddies to cough up some Benjamins for Trump's campaign and his GOP/Likudniks. I guess
nowadays our judgement is so clouded and inverted that MAGA and MIGA are considered
inseparable.
2. The delusion that dems are bitterly angry and anti-Israel (because they are
anti-Trump) and therefore it automatically becomes an issue of partisan support for Trump and
whatever he does. This idea is so absurd that I won't get into it. Dems were the first to
congratulate Israel.
I would like Larry to tell me what he thinks of H.R. 1697 Israel Anti-Boycot Act which
punishes American citizens for practicing their god-given 2nd Amendment rights. or the 3.8
billion of aid, or the the gifting of Golan heights to Bibi? Are these big foreign policy
success too?
What the Arab-Israeli normalization means:
*The U.S. wants out of the ME to focus on China, a wet dream that Israel favors especially
post Cold War. It does not want secular, (semi) democratic sovereign states around it, and if
anyone pays attention close enough they do whatever they can to prevent any kind of political
reform and change of government to occur among Arab nations. Israelis are staunch supporters
of Saudi, Bahraini, UAE, Jordanian, and Egyptian dictatorships in the MENA region.
Israel
will now be better positioned to roll-back any kind of grassroots reform in the ME with the
help of their now openly pro-Israeli Arab rulers by directing policies to these backward
rulers to divest from human development and political reform and instead invest more in
security, tech, surveillance.
This trend also explains Israeli constant opposition to the
Iran Deal, which would have had further ramifications for political reform and accelerated
weakening of Hardliners in Tehran and a better position for America to pivot to China with
the help of a moderated Iran. Israel does not want a powerful democratic nation near its
borders, and especially not in Iran. Just take a look at Israel's neighbors and tell me how
many of them are democratic and friendly with Israel and how does Israel behave when there
are secular Arab democratic states around it?
There is a developing coalition of powerful states as a reaction to the Arab-Israeli
normalization that observers call "the rejectionists". They are, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan
(impending), Malaysia (impending), Iran, and EU (impending).
It is true that Iran has now a target on its back and if it were smart, it would try its
best to develop some kind of alliance with the secular democratic humanists in EU to try to
remove itself from isolation, save what is left of the Iran Deal, and try to isolate and
condemn Israelis, Arab dictators and their cohorts internationally and through diplomacy back
portraying them as illiberal and anti-democratic or similar things. Although I am not too
hopeful that Iran is be able to do this for a number of obvious reasons.
This Arab-Israeli normalization is a MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) vision of very
tightly controlled development for the MENA region and extremely' special' attention has been
given to the cyber tech development (call it surveillance) to control the 'Arab Street' from
social revolt and the prevention of next rounds of Arab Springs, which again goes back to
Israel's long-standing regional doctrine of propping pro-U.S. and now pro-Israeli Arab
dictatorships in the region.
In the end, it's all just tribal superstition. Logically a spiritual absolute would be the
essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we
fell.
The fact we are aware, than the myriad details of which we are aware.
One of the reasons we can't have a live and let live world is because everyone thinks their
own vision should be universal, rather than unique. So the fundamentalists rule.
The reason nature is so diverse and dense is because it isn't a monoculture.
Irrespective of our technology, we are still fairly primitive, in the grand scheme of
things.
When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in
history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty
highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or
used as that cause.
If this all ends up in the longest run leading to today's and tomorrow's Israelis
accepting the lesser Israel that Rabin ended up deciding would be necessary for a
lesser-but-still-real Palestine to emerge as a real country resigned with both resigned
enough to that outcome that they would tolerate eachother's separate independence over the
long term, then this will go somewhere good.
But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is
totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for
ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That
outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice.
To have a two state solution Israel will have to leave enough of Palestine without Jewish
settlement for there to be room for another state. Their actions show that they have no
intention of doing that.
Larry: the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad
enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats.
Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never
going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and
water tables)
The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push
this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. The gerontocracy that rules the PA will soon pass away. The younger generation of
Palestinians are much more sophisticated.
As a trial lawyer, I see this type of behavior all the time. If you offer someone
essentially nothing, they lose nothing by rejecting it. The Arab dictators will not be around forever. And before Camp David, the Palestinians
have suffered far worse than they are suffering now.
In short: "We Jews know that Arabs (Palestinians) will never, ever voluntarily give up
hope of resisting Jewish demands, and Jews will never stop with Jewish demands: that all of
Palestine become Jewish.
Since 'voluntary' will not work, only force -- an Iron Wall -- will suffice.
Jabotinsky defines "Iron Wall" as the enforcement capacity of an outside power:
"we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their
voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the
natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism.
Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in
defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue
and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population
– an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto,
our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour
Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power
committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be
deterred from interfering with our efforts."
Be aware that Benjamin Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was Jabotinsky's administrative
assistant, then replacement, in New York; that Bibi is very much heir to the ideological
fervor of Jabotinsky & of Benzion; and that Benzion and Benjamin laid out the blueprint
for the GWOT at the Jerusalem Conference July 4, 1979 https://www.amazon.com/International-Terrorism-Challenge-Benjamin-Netanyahu/dp/0878558942
Trump plays only a walk-on role in this carefully scripted 150 year old zionist drama.
"there isn't a lot of difference between KSA and these fiefdoms of uae and bahrain.." A
total crock. you obviously have never been to either of these places.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
...Amid all the pedantic squabbling over when it is and is not legal under US law for a
journalist to expose evidence of US war crimes, we must never lose sight of the fact that (A)
it should always be legal to expose war crimes, (B) it should always be illegal for governments
to hide evidence of their war crimes, (C) war crimes should always be punished, (D) people who
start criminal wars should always be punished, (E) governments should not be permitted to have
a level of secrecy that allows them to start criminal wars, and (F) power and secrecy should
always have an inverse relationship to one another.
The Assange case needs to be fought tooth and claw, but we must keep in mind that it is so
very, very many clicks back from where we need to be as a civilization. In an ideal situation,
governments should be too afraid of the public to keep secrets from them; instead, here we are
begging the most powerful government in the world to please not imprison a journalist because
he arguably did not break the rules that that government made for itself.
Do you see how far that point is from where we need to be?
It's important to remember this. It's important to remember that the amount of evil deeds
power structures will commit is directly proportional to the amount of information they are
permitted to hide from the public. We will not have a healthy world until power and secrecy
have an inverse relationship to each other: privacy for rank-and-file individuals, and
transparency for governments and their officials.
"But what about military secrets?" one might object. Yes, what about military
secrets? What about the fact that virtually all military violence perpetrated by the world's
largest power structures is initiated based on lies ? What about the utterly indisputable fact that the
more secrecy we allow the war machine, the more wars it deceives the public into allowing it to
initiate?
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't be trying to squint at
its own laws in such a way that permits the prosecution of a journalist for telling the
truth.
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't prosecute anyone for
telling the truth at all.
In a healthy world, governments would prosecute their own war crimes, instead of those who
expose them.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't commit war crimes at all.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't start wars at all.
In a healthy world, governments would see truth as something to be desired and actively
sought, not something to be repressed and punished.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't keep secrets from the public, and wouldn't have any
cause to want to.
In a healthy world, if governments existed at all, they would exist solely as tools for the
people to serve themselves, with full transparency and accountability to those people.
We are obviously a very, very far cry from the kind of healthy world we would all like to
one day find ourselves in. But we should always keep in mind what a healthy world will look
like, and hold it as our true north for the direction that we are pushing in.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reality007 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, no criminals that have committed or covered up war crimes, decades ago to
present, will ever be indicted. They are all above the law while all innocents that revealed
the truths must pay highly. We can only pray and hope for the best for Julian Assange.
Fred Dozer Reality007 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with robbing banks in criminal controlled countries. These governments,
murder, cheat, lie, & steal.
T. Agee Kaye 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 11:10 AM
The right of a people to know what their government is doing, and the potential consequences
of those actions on the people, nation, and society, is inalienable. The exposure of war
crimes and any corruption is not illegal and cannot be made illegal. The trial of Assange is
not about the legality of Assange's actions. It is a display of the influence that criminal
interests have over the government and judiciary. It is an attempt to create legitimacy by
creating precedent. Murder has plenty of precedent. It will never be legitimate.
Jewel Gyn 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:21 AM
Agreed but having said that, we are not living in a perfect world. Bully with big fists exist
and the lesser countries just stood by frustrated and sucking their thumbs, silent lest they
be targeted for voicing out. And you can see clearly why US is walking away from any form of
organised voice eg UN.
Odinsson 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:51 AM
What we need in the case of Julian Assange is factual reporting. While the motivation to
prosecute Assange is most likely political, there would be no ability to prosecute him were
it not for his active support of PFC Manning's hacking of a DOD information system. It is not
unlawful to publish classified information which was provided to you, so long as you are not
involved in the criminal acts leading to the exfiltration of the data. Had Assange not aided
PFC Manning by looking up hash codes in spreadsheets of known password to hash code
translations then the grand jury would not have indicted him. FWIW, it is my opinion that the
statute of limitations expired long ago and this should be grounds for dismissal of all
charges against him.
jholf 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:04 PM
These world leaders, claim to be Christians, ... their God 'commands', "Thou shalt not kill."
Yet, for more than 6 decades, that is exactly what each of these Christian Commanders in
Chief, have done for no reason, other than to fill the pockets of the elite. A man is known
by his deeds, Assange gave us truth, while these world leaders gave us war and destructi
Karlof 1 @ 32 attacks vk @4-- Your attempt to credit Karl Popper with the concept of public
opinion is just as false as the stories b wrote about. Click here for a history of that
concept. by: karlof1 | Sep 15 2020 17:04 utc | 32
What I like about what vk@ 4 said is that he has given this list a beginning to not only
understand our plight as members of the governed classes, but also to analyze our experience
with this stuff and to develop a set of rules that can allow us to defend our minds against
being controlled by invisible hands of mind control.
can we on this list develop a defensive strategy and use it to teach the governed
masses?
Around the globe and throughout history it can be observed that the oligarchs invent a
collection of values and stuff them into structures they call nation states, culture,
institutions and journalist are all designed to, and rewarded for supporting the values,
while media is charged to keep the propaganda circulating.
The H&C propaganda model pulls together from across the political communications
literature the variety of factors which essentially constrain journalist and means that they
don't actually play the independent autonomous and watchdog role that we expect them to in a
democracy ae Herman Chromsky talk about the importance oe size concentration ownership oe
mainstream media the way in w/e ownership of most oe media outlets w/people go to for their
information is essentially associated w/very large conglomerates w/h overlapping interests
and overlapping interests with government and this produces a large structural constraint oe
way the media operates.
The Interface between Propaganda and War: Prof.
The Propaganda Model: The filters (Herman & Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, the political
economy of the mass media).
The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries
across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of
distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive
from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the
shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.
But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no
rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they
made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent
seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European
colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced
by Hollywood.
These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for
construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a
waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.
This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the
US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The
Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors
whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.
But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No,
it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice,
Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this
devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black
President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an
African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.
But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes
carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United
States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from
internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and
directly into the heart of darkness.
There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the
desert sand.
To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel
a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to
bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency
as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.
In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about
good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par
excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French
philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David
Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly
illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who
conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they
who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.
The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US
military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a
wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves
in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by
the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war
criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in
a new era of openness and partnership.
The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and
amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to
arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former
dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the
anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro
chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the
National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became
head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published
in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into
an international star.
Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas
Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of
the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the
Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the
Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate
government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi
government.
But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he
might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become
aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist,
stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag
flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as
Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.
However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military
juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level
talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most
importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months
before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would
be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.
The
Americans Enter the Fray
There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and
military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war
in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it
not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British
counterparts.
As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained
in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on
to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess
the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure
of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to
determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of
anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated
with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.
The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.
But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on
military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of
the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least
according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was
concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an
Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then
abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.
It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for
aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated
for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime
committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of
Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.
As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning
staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal
participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly
under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the
imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an
"easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation
whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.
Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to
turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab
Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly
became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama
Administration.
Obama's War Off the Books
One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated
dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets –
that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American
lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very
little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.
But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars;
the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the
groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington
Post
reported at the time:
Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to
the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental
funding would be requested from Congress.
Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the
Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core
Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular
Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But
the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.
Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war,
there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the
war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the
abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In
essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for
constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed,
some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct
corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.
So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless
you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon
spokesperson told CNN in 2011,
"The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1
billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and
humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of
discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN,
suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it
cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take
the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear
documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that
there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning
Constitution.
America's Dirty War in Libya
While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted
from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US
Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist
groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real
legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of
spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of
terror groups that did the dirty work.
While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment
mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the
time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the
primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:
"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel
Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members
were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the
fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under
the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."
Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that
the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to
be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they
are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after
Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links
to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.
Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty
good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US
operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi
opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.
"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone.
Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the
Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to
Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on
November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna],
Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a
population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest
per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."
It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region
including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as
anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among
the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.
Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA
facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times
reported in 2012:
"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons,
securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny
supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as
the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is
regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."
But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to
Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army
have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces
vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in
its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near
Langley, Virginia. As the
New York Times reported in 1991:
The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan
Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were
among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained
by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at
a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the
Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.
Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man,"
having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to
overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an
escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether
Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by
continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters
is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the
broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic
hellscape that is modern Libya.
Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.
The Past is Prologue
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos
and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus,
then surely Biden is the cure.
It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets
like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya.
Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A
warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates for support.
It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other
issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public
imagination and discourse.
But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The
Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan
African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial
powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of
vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.
Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.
Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together.
Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to
the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben
Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to
the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind
the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
AVmaster , 13 hours ago
Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)
Number of wars Trump has started: 0
This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back
somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.
fucking truth , 12 hours ago
Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see
a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.
ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Has no choice.
The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.
Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.
If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to
start scrapping them.
The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and
disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into
this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.
Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to
declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a
rogue president.
play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago
Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised
of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government
spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit
society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a
massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name
just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a
better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of
priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.
The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is
there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before
profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that
capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of
society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that
turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the
weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean
them off of the government teat.
DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago
Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense
protections not known to the public at this time.
ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago
DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.
The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.
play_arrow
1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago
To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a
fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of
Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while
Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found
not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an
open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by
China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?
play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend
munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow
scaleindependent , 10 hours ago
Final Jeopardy, genius!
What is Syria and Iran?
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.
lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago
Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if
pre-set by computer.
How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the
Pentagon.
Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail
Caesar?
play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago
Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering
millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like
Bush and Obama did).
play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Yep some people don't get it.
With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually
need more war to keep them gainfully employed.
Get the picture?
2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war
Don't forget also blockading Venezuela
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned
whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when
he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self
preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no
threat).
Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping
them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via
Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert.
Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.
Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM
in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games &
wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching
the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.
sauldaddy , 11 hours ago
That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to
Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought
slavery BACK to Africa
_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago
Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's
shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and
Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state.
On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.
Ms No , 13 hours ago
That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil
declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to
see how that ends up.
play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families
getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the
black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans
thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was
spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in
Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to
Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that
flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in
Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them
into the ground.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil
for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was
the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast
of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to
control.
play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago
I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??
No1uNo , 6 hours ago
Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary
at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.
Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the
overthrow....
quanttech , 13 hours ago
try the french treasury...
Bill300 , 12 hours ago
Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel,
had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst
the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold
mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in
Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?
These people are so evil.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?
I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is
not an easy thing to find
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil
DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago
Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples
based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be
playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
It's mind boggling.
Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs
dropping on the US one year.
Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago
Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k
decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?
Shifter_X , 9 hours ago
Hillary ******* Clinton
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.
Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their
petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.
end the fed, and all central banks.
Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago
That's the story in a nutsh-ell
desertboy , 10 hours ago
The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look,
the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an
interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.
Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's
future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new
CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.
No1uNo , 8 hours ago
I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out.
Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast
of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing
economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).
Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his
economy......different story.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!
not dead yet , 11 hours ago
Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar.
Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being
set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when
Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and
enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts
attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco
garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage
to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for
use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put
up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also
the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops
out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for
Western exploitation of Africa.
At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks
around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by
Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a
penny.
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
great info.
got a good concise source?
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want
to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches
SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago
America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing
Obama.
Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats
oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n
world.
ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago
The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic
Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of
humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount
Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The
university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those
students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice
Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus
in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail
Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.
The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie
Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive
at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the
globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.
It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice
Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in
1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts
gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300
and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.
Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie
commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.
And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo
of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson
of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail
and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in
1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a
message which needs to be understood.
David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further
description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.
If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the
Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the
presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared
hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer.
The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible,
to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work
associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central
America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when
Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.
Shifter_X , 8 hours ago
These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.
SMH
bobroonie , 13 hours ago
Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for
more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey
Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be
made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the
invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most
dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were
so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was
well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his
last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant.
According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left
for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and
Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were
up to.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.
the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy
to admit this.
David2923 , 5 hours ago
Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its
citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to
all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the
average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house,
equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great
Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states:
"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not
be owned by others.")
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to
buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all
Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the
finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to
doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya,
the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US
$2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though
much of this is now frozen globally.
You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and
its slave states.
dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago
Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red
pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.
We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american
president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has
slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of
course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.
Lokiban , 11 hours ago
Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars
Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal
to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which
we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.
That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did
in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.
NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago
Slick Willy --> War Criminal
Chimp --> War Criminal
Obongo --> War Criminal
Hillarity --> War Criminal
Groper Joe --> War Criminal
Etc... etc... etc...
Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???
If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's
attention on YOUR a$$!
Apeon , 11 hours ago
Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson
NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago
I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty
- sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago
Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.
No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his
oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went
missing.
It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both
Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country
taglady , 7 hours ago
Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through
exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because
of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only
invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in
every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and
many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after
911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real
Americans have struggled to make ends meet.
taglady , 7 hours ago
Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced
the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to
vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and
media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance
was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while
liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy
to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of
government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except
our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm.
Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all
of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS
"surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us
broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?
Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago
The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African
continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest
example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.
John C Durham , 1 hour ago
Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this
War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got
Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?
Libya only proves this true.
LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago
America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from
the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE
THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.
NO MORE . . . NO LESS
QABubba , 5 hours ago
This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote
foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our
leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a
"no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own,
stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined"
it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his
antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly),
and his troop convoys.
Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand
by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very
well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West
to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea
just receded by about 50 years.
And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American
thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the
flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to
assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed
their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the
US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of
the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and
Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold
after the 2014 Maidan coup.
By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he
died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all
of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other
fiat currencies.
That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their
private fiefdom to loot at will.
Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed.
After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?
lastugro , 10 hours ago
... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where
the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.
Michael Norton , 11 hours ago
Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar
Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some
CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.
dogfish , 9 hours ago
And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians.
Trump is a real humanitarian.
Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago
Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at
the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution
and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.
The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a
commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial
banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an
African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have
destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.
Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist
"Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily
overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful
fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French
adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of
Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.
Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the
Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black
Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours
the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the
deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal
is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the
innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had
fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a
major rupture with the Islamic creed.
Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab
to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving
them.
It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the
US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in
the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of
the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to
expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have
destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to
throw at Israel.
Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian
Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the
development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like
Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated.
Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead
Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this
madness.
Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates
through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men
run with gold and dollars.
At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like
Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and
why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical
appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the
system works.
Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker
C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is
why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the
domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist
apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties
to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.
Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching
over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder
get involved.
Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal
enterprise.
voting machine , 6 hours ago
Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.
This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101
Jackprong , 7 hours ago
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to
take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no
clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the
idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a
functioning Constitution.
Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!
bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago
" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist,
and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "
The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.
The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine,
Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!
Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago
Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.
Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from
the same fate.
Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and
subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.
Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely
destroyed for their stupidity.
OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago
First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international
diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it.
We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in
a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on
the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the
truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the
other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the
peaceful governments.
csc61 , 1 hour ago
The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding
that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden
hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns
... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to
scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than
privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily
corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would
happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign
documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to
pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden
thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the
white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury
mine deep and dead, I do not swing
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Fair enough..
Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of
Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..
Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity,
vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the
part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to
mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious
pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to
mind..
Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the
humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently,
to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh
thinking that ought now understand that..
What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via
the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..
The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and
RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect
RESTITUTION..
Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in
any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?
Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how
depraved?
Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?
With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..
With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..
But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that
patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?
Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their
salvation is self directed..
And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..
And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..
It's that simple..
And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..
That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the
Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."
And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many
colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of
Provident Divinity..
)
And the glorification?
That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought
demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..
And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit
of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the
Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except
above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..
So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you
keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..
And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..
And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..
By
Tony
Cox
, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.
The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get
involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.
Someone should tell the
New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good
reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.
Alas, ignorance of these
obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get
the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.
The latest example is the
New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex
as disrespect for the military at large.
"Trump has lost the right and authority to be
commander in chief,"
the
Times quoted
retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged
"despicable
comments"
about the nation's war dead – reported last week by
The
Atlantic
, citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."
Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist
when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the
president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the
temerity
to say
Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Except the pieces don't
fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to
war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national
security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's
national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.
Remember that great 1967
war movie, '
The
Dirty Dozen'
? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their
crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy
lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles
Bronson, told the mission leader,
"Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."
So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni,
but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the
"right
and authority"
to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want
senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.
The Times cited General
James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat
"when
it's required for national security and a last resort."
And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat
intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a
young man the last time that happened.
CNN tried a similar ploy
on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert
Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a
"pattern of public statements
" by
the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for
being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on
McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.
Apparently, this follows
the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US
from Mexico – which is undeniably true –
equals
saying
all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.
McCain was
a
warmonger
who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If
he
had his way
, many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the
US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.
All wars are hard on the
people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day
in the US, according to Veterans Administration
data
.
Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.
The media's deceiving
technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader
campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The
military
is
just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments,
such as
police
,
are demonized and attacked.
Trump has managed to keep
the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival,
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy
adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May
interview
with CBS News
that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.
Trump also has turned
around the VA hospital system, ending
decades
of neglect
that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.
Like past campaigns to
oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words
may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.
This is surely the last thing the American people want to hear, but it does confirm
President Trump's
recent statements saying that top Pentagon brass essentially seeks out constant wars to
keep defense contractors "happy": the Department of Defense plans to cut major military
contractors a $10 billion to $20 billion COVID bailout check .
Defense One
reports : "With lawmakers and the White House unable to come to an agreement on a new
coronavirus stimulus package, it's unlikely that money requested to reimburse defense
contractors for pandemic-related expenses will reach these companies until at least the second
quarter of 2021, according to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer."
Defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, Ellen Lord, in recent statements has
indicated the private defense firm stimulus would cover the period from March 15 to Sept. 15
and is estimated at "between $10 and $20 billion."
"Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once," Lord said at a press briefing
Wednesday. "It isn't going to be a first in, first out, and we have to rationalize using the
rules we've put in place what would be reimbursable and what's not."
And strongly suggesting that it won't be the last of such stimulus for defense firms who
have already profited immensely off post 9/11 'wars of choice' launched under Bush and Obama,
Lord
said , "I would contend that most of the effects of COVID haven't yet been seen."
"I'm not saying the military's in love with me," Trump added , as he advocated for
the removal of U.S. troops from "endless wars" and lambasted NATO allies that he says rip off
the U.S. "The soldiers are."
"The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight
wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make
everything else stay happy," he added.
"Some people don't like to come home, some people like to continue to spend money," the
president said. "One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that's what it was."
The "outrage" that followed included reporters claiming that Trump's words were
"unprecedented".
But that's far from the truth, as Glen Greenwald reminded his fellow journalists:
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1303109722468429824&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafter-trump-lambasted-endless-wars-enriching-defense-firms-dod-confirms-10-20-billion&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Well over a half-century ago, Eisenhower warned, "In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
and will persist."
And further: "We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry
can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our
peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
"... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House. ..."
"... "The US-centralized empire is held together by endless violence, and the plutocrats who run it have built their kingdoms upon the status quo of that empire." That statement is a synopsis of the past 500+ years of European expansion/ imperialism ..."
Yesterday the US
ordered an airstrike on Syrian forces, killing one, when they refused to let the illegal
occupying force past a checkpoint in northern Syria.
In both cases an arm of the US-centralized empire used wildly disproportionate force
against people who stood against a hostile occupation of their own country. In both cases the
more powerful and violent occupiers claimed they were acting in "self-defense". In both cases
dropping explosives from the sky upon human beings barely made the news.
Bombs should not exist. Explosives designed to blow fire and shrapnel through human bodies
should not be a thing. In a sane world, there wouldn't be bombs, and if some mentally
unbalanced person ever made and used one it would be a major international news story.
Instead, bombs are cranked out like iPhones at
enormous profit , and nearly all bombings are ignored. Many bombs
are being dropped per day by the US and its allies, with a massive
civilian death toll , and almost none of those bombings receive any international
attention. The only time they do is generally when a bombing occurs that was not authorized
by the US-centralized empire.
This is one of those absolutely freakish things about our society that has become
normalized through careful narrative management, and we really shouldn't allow it to be.
The fact that explosives designed to rip apart human anatomy are dropped from the sky many
times per day for no other reason than to exert control over foreign countries should horrify
us all.
An interesting social experiment when you talk to someone might be to tell them solemnly,
"There's been a bombing." Then when they say "What?? Where??", tell them "The Middle East
mostly. Our government and its allies drop many bombs there per day in order to keep a
resource-rich geostrategic region balkanized and controllable."
Then watch their reaction.
You will probably notice a marked change in demeanor as the person learns that what you
meant is different from what they thought you meant. They will likely act as though you'd
tricked them in some way. But you didn't. You just called a thing the thing that it is, and
let their assumptions do the rest.
When someone gravely tells you "There's been a bombing," what they almost always mean is
that there has been a suspected terrorist attack in a western, majority-white nation. They
don't mean the kind of bombing that kills exponentially more people and does exponentially
more damage than terrorism in western nations. They don't mean the kind of terrorism that our
government enacts and approves of.
There's a lot of pushback nowadays against the racism and prejudices that are woven
throughout the fabric of our society, and rightly so .
But what doesn't get nearly enough attention in this discourse is the fact that while some
manifestations of bigotry may have been successfully scaled back somewhat in our own
countries, it was in a sense merely exported overseas.
The violence that is being inflicted overseas in our name by the US-centralized empire is
more horrific than any manifestation of racism we're ever likely to encounter at home. It is
more horrific than the pre-integration American South. It is more horrific than even slavery
itself. Yet even the more conscious among us fail to give this relentless onslaught of
violence a proportionate degree of recognition and condemnation, even while the consent for
it is largely born of the unexamined
bigoted notion that violence against people in developing and non-western countries does
not matter.
Like many other forms of bigotry, this one has been engineered and promulgated by powerful
people who benefit from it. If the mainstream news media were what it purports to be, namely
an institution dedicated to creating an informed populace about what's truthfully going on in
the world, we would see the bombings in foreign nations given the same type of coverage that
a bombing in Paris or London receives.
This would immediately bring consciousness to the unconscious bigotry that those in the
US-centralized empire hold against people in low and middle income countries, which is
exactly why the plutocrat-owned media do not report on it in this way. The US-centralized
empire is held together by endless violence, and the plutocrats who run it have built their
kingdoms upon the status quo of that empire.
When people set out to learn what's really going on in their world they often start
cramming their heads with history and geopolitics facts and figures, which is of course fine
and good. But a bigger part of getting a clear image of what's happening in the world is
simply turning your gaze upon things you already kind of knew were happening, but couldn't
quite bring yourself to look at.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
From the Ramparts, 17 hours ago
"The US-centralized empire is held together by endless violence, and the plutocrats who run it have built their
kingdoms upon the status quo of that empire." That statement is a synopsis of the past 500+ years of European expansion/
imperialism.
The AmeriKKKan Empire is the reigning heir to that legacy of Western thuggery, plunder and pillage.
IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely
imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government
expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really?
Isn't the western alliance for all intents & purposes already dead?
It is a shame as it could work together to counter the totalitarian CCP. But Mama Merkel
it seems would rather get a few yuan from the communists and turn a blind eye to CCP
authoritarianism until it becomes obvious that the CCP are ruthless and will be competing
with Germany around the world for machine tools and autos by undercutting them on price and
heavily subsidizing their companies until German industry is destroyed.
I have heard of these elusive creatures called "Europeans", but have yet to meet one, so
am not able to comment on their alleged "smug superiority". How many divisions do they
have?
If anything drives the US and Europe apart, it will be trade, not security. Germany is
clearly chafing under the US bit, which sacrifices European industry to US interests --
sanctions on Nordstream 2, trade with Russia, trade with Iran, and China and Huawei. The US
clearly prioritizes it's own LNG , finance, technology and arms industries over European
prosperity. It amazes me that it has taken Europe so long to wake up.
Biden will do nothing to change that dynamic, since he is beholden to the same interests
as Trump.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? The Baltics and most
likely the Poles do with past history in mind. I would like to see them and the Ukrainians
transition into something like the Finns who acknowledge Russian power but maintain their
independence. Right now they are looking at NATO as their guarantee of independence in the
future. Who can blame them when looking at history.
The Trump admin's (and for that matter, Trump's own instincts) are and have continuously
been quite correct with regards to EU's defense expenditures agenda. The European 'humanists'
take advantage of the American defense umbrella inside their own countries so they can afford
to NOT spend on defense and instead spend more on domestic and economic development. So while
America continues to pay for the EU's defense it cannot afford to invest in its own domestic
programs (infrastructure, etc.) adequately. These Europeans then with the collaboration of
their Atlanticist fellows on the other side of the pond do nation-building and
democratization projects (call it endless wars) abroad, such as in Afghanistan. Just don't
ask them about their track record in this department.
However, the thing is when their immediate interests are in danger they forget about
America in a heartbeat. Examples, Germany's Nordstream pipeline with Russia, 5G
infrastructure and development, trade with China, Paris climate accord, etc.
I tend to believe that EU knows best how to make an existential threat out of Russia.
Anyone still remembers the novichok incident back in 2018? The thing with Russia is that from
the POV of EU, they view their Eastern neighbor as a solid and stable illiberal system that
is not within the ideological orbit of the western liberal democracy and thus they feel
threatened by that ideologically, NOT a scenario in which from Tallinn to Toulouse is invaded
and captured by Putin. In this endeavor they also have found willing partners in
'anti-authoritarian' hawks such as Bob Kagan, Hilary, Sam Power et.al that tow the same line
and advocate for NATO expansion and other similar projects.
The EU in definitely terrified of a scenario in which the U.S. (under a nationalist
conservative administration) starts de-funding NATO or withdraws its troops from Europe. In
this case they need to cut public spending and allocate more on defense which has a clear
impact on the 'democratic spirit' of EU's over-hyped social democracy.
In the past few years we have seen the rise of right-wing populsit nationalist parties in
pretty much every single major EU country. I believe there are strong tendencies in the Trump
admin-if DJT manages to stay in power for another 4 years- to do a little *something
something* about EU's decades-long nefarious free-riding of U.S. defense umbrella and I don't
think the effeminate EU leaders will gonna like it very much.
Barbara Ann - You say "I have heard of these elusive creatures called "Europeans", but
have yet to meet one, so am not able to comment on their alleged "smug superiority". How many
divisions do they have?"
The term "European" has become disputed territory. As an Englishman I regard myself fully
as "European" as any German or Frenchman but for many the term now seems to mean exclusively
"Member of the European Union". Tricky, that one.
Me, I prefer the term "Westerner". It takes in the so-called "Anglosphere" as well and
therefore covers all the ground without going into the fact that some parts have become
considerably less powerful over the last century and others considerably more. Also
accommodates without fuss the fact that the cultural centre of gravity, at some indeterminate
time in that last century, moved across from Paris, Vienna and Berlin to New York and parts
west.
Not always to your advantage, to you as an American that is, because a fair chunk of the
Frankfurt mob moved over your way with it. You caught from Old Europe the destructive and
vacuous tenets of "Progressivism" and are now sharing the disease in its full vigour with
us.
I mention that last because the violent TDS you see across the Atlantic isn't specifically
European. It's merely that it's natural for progressives to detest Trump or rather, not the
man himself but the "populist" forces he is taken to represent. It's garlic to the vampire
for the progressive, the Little House on the Prairie or its various European equivalents, and
the allergic reaction will become stronger yet. That "smug superiority" you will therefore
find in the States as readily as you will find it here. America or here we live on sufferance
in occupied territory, if we are not progressives ourselves, and should not the occupiers
always be superior and smug?
I went hunting for the Telegraph article the Colonel discusses above. I didn't like that
article at all. It gets the "freeloading" part right but in the context of a Russophobia
that's seemingly set in stone. And the Telegraph is not so much a progressive newspaper as
one that, while throwing a few token bones to its mainly Conservative readership, buys the
progressive Weltanschauung just as much as the Guardian or New York Times.
"How many divisions do they have?" A few more than the pope but maybe that's not
the point. I recently tried to follow the twists and turns of Mrs May's negotiations with the
EU as they related to defence. I got the impression that in the matter of defence the supply
of divisions could safely be left to the Americans. It was the allocation of defence
contracts that they were all concerned about.
Residing in Europe in the late 1960's at a US joint NATO military attachment in Northern
Italy, we mused were we there to keep our eye on the Russians, or in fact keep our eyes on
the Germans. One still saw in the back rooms, AXIS memorabilia.
As an aside: the only reason Michelle Obama chose as one of her FLOTUS projects - support
of military families -- was so she could get Uncle Sam to jet her around to all those US
military bases still in Europe for tea with the commander's wife and then on to her real
purpose - shopping and having fun with friends and families she was able to drag along. On
our dime.
My last visit to Europe found there are now more Turks, than former "Europeans; except in
France where they were more Algerians, than native French. And of course UK has long been
little more than the entrenched polyglot of their vast far flung Empire.
Indeed, who is a "European" today. Birth rate demographics from the former colonies, boat
people or import of cheap labor has now taken over anything we used to call "European". Can a
resident Turk really serve up a perfect plate of raclette in Switzerland? One word answer:
no. And that is a sad loss. One must instead shift their tastes to shwarma, if one wants
European food today.
In regard to Europeans--and perhaps some Australians whom I've met--I have often felt that
they in some ways did feel a bit superior to Americans.
Their sense of superiority, however, seemed more rooted in a sense of cultural
superiority. Those on the blog who viewed the comic rendition of the Three Little Pigs that
was recently posted here might think of that and its wonderful ending about the house that
was "American made." it was a wonderful ending for that well-known tale and a great defense
of our culture's current limited and plain vocabulary in some groups.
As an English major and English teacher, so much of the great literature that we taught
did come from England. I took three Comps when I earned my Masters: English literature from
Beowulf (which I read in Old English) to Chaucer's Catterbury Tales (which I read in Middle
English) and then to Virginia Woolf.
For my comp in American literature, I read from Washington Irving to the modern American
writers at the time I was in college.
My third comp was in Modern Linguistic Theory.
Of course we taught Shakespeare and Dickens---English writers--to our junior high and high
school classes. We studied mostly American writers in regard to short stories, as short
stories are considered the American genre. Our teaching of poetry covered both English and
American poets. As far as novels go, we taught both English and American novels.
Russian and German novelists were also on our list of reading for our comps. (We read them
in English translation.)
In summary, American culture was often overshadowed by the many longer centureies of
European culture in much of my college career.
What the Europeans can't deny, though they may want to, is that the tehcology and
innovation in things like automobile production, electricity, telephones, and into space
expoloration ---many things like that--is where we can indeed be quite proud.
They can continue to feel culturally superior to us if it makes them feel better. I defy
them, however, to minimize our importance in World War II.
A European was understood, in Iran, to be a Christian. A Turk in Germany or and Algerian
in France is just that, a Turk, an Algerian, i.e. another Muslim.
There are professional and managerial middle class French Muslims in Paris and elsewhere,
but are they French? I do not know how assimilated they are.
" he will follow some Trump-era objectives, because that is what American interests
demand, thus showing that Trump was no extremist on China."
So if Biden and Trump both want something, that shows that it isn't extreme. How does that
work again?
The drive for confrontation with Russia contradicts Europe's desire to do buisness with her.
Hence the end of the Western Alliance.
"The US faces a rapidly escalating political crisis. The losing party in November will
undoubtedly go to the federal courts to claim that their opponents cheated in the
process."
They all went along with electronic voting and postal ballots. Now they're all going to
complain about the consequences.
Of course NATO should have disappeared together with the Berlin Wall, but it is alive,
kicking and ever looking for trouble, Belarus comes to mind.
The problem with propaganda is that the emitter ends up believing it, Europe does not need
any protection, we have the means to protect ourselves.
The US is an occupation force, and on top of it demands payment for it. Pick up your gear and
go home, and by the way, Europe should worry about countries armed to their teeth by the US,
I'm thinking about Morocco for instance, since I live in Spain. The beautiful line of the
Sierra that I contemplate every morning while stretching has been contaminated with a radar
station of the Aegis system, and that means we in our quite and beautiful Andalusian town are
a target for the biggies. Stop believing your propaganda, pick up your gear and let everybody
take care of themselves, the benefits will be for the US population in the first place, and
the world will rejoice.
The reason German military contribution to the "western alliance" is what it is is very
simple.
It is according to the incentives that threats that German leadership perceives.
First: Objective strategic things:
Essentially, noone is going to invade Germany. This removes one major reason to have a large
army. Secondly, Germany is not going to productively (in terms of return of investment)
invade anyone else. This removes the second major reason to have a large army. There is
something to be said to have a cadre army that can be surged into a real army if conditions
change.
Second: Incentives of German political leaders.
While the degree of German vassal stateness concerning the USA is up to a degree of debate,
that the USA has a lot of influence over Germany is in my view not. Schröder got elite
regime changed over his Iraq war opposition (it was amazing that literally all the newspaper
were against him, had a big impact on me growing up during this time).
Essentially, if you are in Nato, at some point, Uncle Sam will invite you to some adventure.
If you say yes to this adventure you commit your armed forces to some confrontation in the
middle east if you are lucky, or against Russia in Eastern Europe if you are unlucky. Your
population is not going to like this, and you may face losing elections over this. It is also
expensive in terms of life and material (although not very expensive compared to actual wars
against competent enemies).
If you say no, Uncle Sam will be displeased with you and will make this known for example by
sicking the entire "Transatlantic leadership networks" on you, which can also make you lose
the next election.
Essentially, if Uncle Sam comes asking, you lose the next election if you say yes, and you
also lose if you say no. Saying no is on balance cheaper, because you dont incurr the
financial and human costs of joing a random US adventure on top of the risk of losing the
next election.
The winning play is to get your army in such a state that Uncle Sam will not even ask.
Germany basically did create condition that enabled this.
Its a reasonably happy state for Germany to be in.
We are basically doing Brave Soldier Schweijk on the national level.
Solutions from a US pov:
1: Do less military adventures. If you do less adventures, people will fear being
shanghaied along less. This will decrease the drawbacks associated with having a reasonable
military as a Nato state.
2: Dont soft regime change governments that say no to your foreign adventures. Instead,
maybe listen to them. Had the US listend to French and German criticism regarding the wisdom
of going to war with Iraq, the US and also a lot of others would have been much better
off.
3: Make it clear that particpation in foreign adventures is actually voluntary instead of
"voluntary", make also clear that participation in defensive operations is not voluntary and
is what Nato was created for and that you expect a considerable contribution towards this.
Also, do some actual exercises. For example, if Germany claims that its military expenditure
is sufficient, stress test this premise by having a realistic exercise in which a German
divisions goes up against an American one. Yes, do some division size exercizes pretty
please. Heck, after ensuring that this exercize wont be a failfest, have some Indian be the
referee.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. My jest about never having met a European
was of course designed to illustrate that "Europe" is a secondary construct. Never has a
person, upon meeting me, introduced themselves as a "European".
Europe is a moveable feast and even territorial definitions are slippery. "Europeans" I
think, must be characterized by short memories, for was it not less than 25 years ago that
European NATO planes bombed their fellow Europeans in Bosnia? It can't have been an accident
either, as I understand the op. was called "Operation Deliberate Force".
If Europe is synonymous with the EU it has precisely zero divisions and though you
yourself may remain "Western", you are as a consequence of Brexit no longer "European". No, I
think you and Polish Janitor are close by identifying "European" as a progressive/liberal,
democratic (read "globalist") value system. An insufficiency of "European-ness" can thus be
used to justify NATO involvement across various geographies - from Bosnia to Afghanistan
(& shortly Belarus?).
But of course the "European" members of NATO are hardly on the same page. It looks not at
all unlikely that two of its members may go to war in the Eastern Mediterranean.
I agree with you re the Telegraph article btw. "European" smugness is well represented in
that organ.
No. They did NOT all go along with "electronic voting and postal ballots." The 50 states
each run federal elections in any way they please. The US Constitution requires that. There
are a wide variety of voting machines in use and only a few states use mailed in ballots. the
Republican Party particularly opposes mail in voting.
You should be complaining to the politicians you elect. They're the ones requesting US
military protection. Prior to Trump, our governments were quite happy to provide that
protection. He's now asking for some cost sharing.
Be careful though, before you know it Spain could become a vassal of the Chinese
communists as many countries in Africa are finding out now. Hopefully you can continue to
extract euros from the Germans and Dutch while battling the separatists in Catalonia. There's
a thin veneer between stability & strife.
Paco, with a huge cost of lives and treasure the US was twice asked to clean up Europe's
self-inflicted messes in the past century. Promise you won't call on us again, and we can
talk. I know, past is not necessarily prologue but do at least meet us half way. It is only
good manners.
Barbara Ann - Lots of Europes of course. "My" Europe may no longer be on the active list.
Traces here and there. Few green shoots that are visible to me. Many rank growths overlaying
it.
Also many "European Unions". They exist all right, in uneasy company.
So many "EU's". A ramshackle Northern European trading empire - I think that's too
unstable to be long for this world but I could be wrong. A nascent superpower, that denied by
many but for some their central aim.
A bureaucratic growth. A handy market place for all. A Holocaust memorial centre; when the
EU politicians find themselves in a tight spot they can always call on Auschwitz and all fall
back in line. I saw Mrs Merkel pull that trick at the last but one Munich Security Conference
and all there, because Mrs Merkel was at that time in a very tight spot, applauded with
relief.
A Progressive Shangri-La, all the more enticing for never being defined. Those adherents
of that "EU" do actually call themselves "EU citizens" and I see the term is becoming more
common usage. Maybe those are the self proclaimed "European citizens" you have not met.
And the producer of reams of lifeless prescription that seek to force all into the same
mould and tough on the poor devils who can't fit the model. And on their families.
Lots of "EU's". I like none of them. While we wait for that edifice of delusion to
collapse I hope the damage it does to "My" Europe is not irreparable.
@ Diana Croissant: "They can continue to feel culturally superior to us if it makes
them feel better. I defy them, however, to minimize our importance in World War II."
Jack, with all due respect, the politician who committed treason and gave away Spanish
territory for a foreign power to install bases died in 1975, nobody voted for him, general
Franco, an ally of Hitler, someone who sent over 50k troops to the siege of Leningrad, one of
the greatest crimes in the history of mankind, a million casualties, mainly civilians, dead
by hunger and disease, that fascist ally of Hitler we had to endure for 40 years, the price
to close your eyes and your nose not to smell the stench were bases, an occupying force
watching one of the strategic straights in Rota, close to Gibraltar, plus other bases inland.
I could go on, and remind you of 4H bombs dropped over Palomares after a broken arrow
incident, one of them broke and plutonium is still poisoning an area that your government is
not willing to clean. So that is what foreign occupation looks like, if something goes wrong,
well, we are protecting you . they say. History should be taught with a bit more detail in
the USA.
I'm afraid you're reading the dynamics of the European/US relationship quite incorrectly.
Bluntly, you have the facts wrong.
This site, and particularly the Colonel's committee of correspondence, is packed with
experts who have lived in this field and know their way around it. So I don't venture a
comprehensive rebuttal myself - my knowledge is partial and I do not have the background to
be sure of getting it dead right. But here -
"Essentially, if you are in Nato, at some point, Uncle Sam will invite you to some
adventure. If you say yes to this adventure you commit your armed forces to some
confrontation in the middle east if you are lucky, or against Russia in Eastern Europe if you
are unlucky."
That is transparent nonsense.
Obama has stated that it was the Europeans, including the UK, who pushed him into some
middle East interventions. I don't think he was shooting a line. The leaked Blumenthal emails
confirm that and we merely have to look at the thrust of French military actions to
understand that the French in particular push continually for intervention in the ME.
They are still doing so, and not for R2P purposes. They would see the ME and parts of
Africa as part of the EU sphere of influence and their initial reaction to Trump's abortive
attempt to withdraw from Syria shows they would be more than prepared to go it alone there if
they could.
A squalid bunch, and here I must include my own country in that verdict. Reliant on US
logistics and military strength they seek to pursue their own interests and could they but do
so they would do so unassisted. Don't pretend that it's the Americans who force them into
these genocidal adventures.
As for the Ukraine, we see from Sakwa's unflattering study of the EU adventure there that
that was building up well before 2014. The dramatic rejection of the EU deal was the prelude
to the coup. The Ashton tape shows an astonishing degree of EU intervention in Ukrainian
internal affairs before that coup. And from the Nuland tape we get a glimpse of the EU regime
change project that shows it was deeply implicated.
Pushed into the Ukrainian adventure by the US? Rubbish. The EU and its constituent members
were attempting to play their own hand and were not merely following the US lead
submissively.
We hear little of European neocon ventures. But what little has surfaced about them shows
that your picture of peace loving Europeans dragged into these conflicts by an overbearing
"Uncle Sam" is dishonest and misleading.
So I tell my German friends and relatives when they push the same line. They look at me
with disbelief and go off and hunt around the internet themselves. And then come back and do
not disagree. I suggest you do the same. The facts are all there, even for those of us
without inside knowledge or who lack the requisite background.
The late June 'Russian bounties in Afghanistan' story lasted no longer than a mere week
given that some of the very publications pushing it
were forced to walk it back based on not only key claims not bearing out, but a slew of top
intel officials and Pentagon generals saying it was baseless.
And then like many other 'Russiagate'-inspired narratives (in this case Trump was accused of
essentially 'looking the other way' while Russians supposedly paid the Taliban to kill US
troops), it was memory-holed.
But this apparently hasn't stopped the State Department or the Pentagon from using it as
leverage while talking to the Russians. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned his counterpart,
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that "there will be an enormous price to pay" if the Kremlin
did indeed pay Afghan fighters to attack Americans or other Westerners .
"That's what I shared with Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov," Pompeo said. "I know our
military has talked to their senior leaders as well. We won't brook that; we won't tolerate
that."
Russia has of course, denied involvement in any such operation, which many analysts have
pointed out would carry major risk of stoking military conflict with the United States but with
little positive gain in the region.
Pompeo also said in the interview
: "We will do everything we need to do to protect and defend every American soldier and, for
that matter, every soldier from the Czech Republic or any other country that's part of the
Resolute Support Mission to make sure that they're safe."
Importantly, it marks the first time any US official has broached the Russian bounties story
with a Kremlin officials .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But again, it's somewhat strange given the US administration (and multiple
US intelligence agencies ) has repeatedly denied that it has any merit. Trump has gone so
far as to all it a "hoax". Thus Pompeo's message to the Russians appears a pure tactic for
achieving leverage.
Or alternately, it could be that Pompeo is just plain undermining Trump on this one.
Unitended Consequences , 5 minutes ago
Pompeo is a Deep State mole.
David Wooten , just now
There is still a big disconnect between Trump and the 'Trump' administration.
America's actions have already caused Beijing and Moscow to put aside historic enmity and
increase its partnership on economic issues and increasingly frequent joint
military drills . China and Iran recently completed the basics of an energy and military
cooperation agreement. Moreover, President Xi Jinping has become increasingly effective at
deepening ties with European, African, and Latin American states.
Today, Washington is saturated with China hawks. Unfortunately, andy voices that champion
keeping America strong by avoiding conflict with China are reflexively smeared as
"appeasement." I fear America may one day find out to its harm that rejecting sober diplomatic
engagement, which could have extended its security and prosperity well into the future, was
dismissed in favor of an unnecessary military-first tactic of coercing China.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat
deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
Incredible interview with Hassan Nasrallah ("The Old Man of The Mountain" as I think of
him) providing insight into his tactical and strategic thinking processes w.r.t the conflict
with Israel:
That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout
history.
Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of
government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or
"public interest".
The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders
and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the
political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest
notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to
prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund
parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken
over.
It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.
I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get
from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100%
sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's
outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.
It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing
control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule
Egypt, we rule the rulers.'
It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of
the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.
To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi
partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor
differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first
priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United
Nations meetings at Lake Success?
It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi
legitimacy on the new title deed holders.
The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their
control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the
furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country
that inhibits that objective. Watch out.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
How a US military doctrine became Colombia's 'origin of evil' | Part 1: "Popeye" : What is known in Latin America as the National Security Doctrine [is] not defense against
an external enemy, but a way to make the military establishment the masters of the game
[with] the right to combat the internal enemy : it is the right to fight and to exterminate
social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment,
and who are assumed to be communist extremists. And this could mean anyone, including human
rights activists such as myself.
Colombia's former Foreign Minister Alfredo Vasquez
"Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince"
Yes after the Mecca siege they found the potential of wahabi islam(redefined by Qutb
teachings in the previous years) to be used against the enemy of zionism.Without 20 November
1979 (not in Teheran but in Mecca) there wouldn't have been any suicide bomber in the years
after.Those men with long beards and strong motivations were a great threat to the saudi
family..they had no fear to die for their struggle because the struggle was all their
life...They had a genuine hatred for usa and saudi corrupted state.It was only a matter of
annihilating them internally and at the same time promoting their birth everywhere in the
Sunni Islamic world...to serve the zionist scum.
Executed Turkish general exposed misuse of Qatari funds for Syria extremists: Report Semih Terzi, a general within the Turkish army, was executed on the night of the 2016
Turkish coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (Photo via the
stockholmcf) Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English Friday 31 July 2020 Text size A A A
The Turkish army executed a senior general within its ranks after he had discovered the
embezzlement of illicit Qatari funding for extremists in Syria by public officials, according
to a 2019 court testimony unveiled in a report by the Nordic Monitor.
Semih Terzi, a general within the Turkish army, was executed on the night of the 2016
Turkish coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The new allegations unveiled in court testimonies from a hearing March 20, 2019at Ankara
17th High Criminal Court were made by Col. Fırat Alakuş, an army officer working
within Turkey's Special Forces Command's intelligence section.
According to the Nordic Monitor, Terzi is said to have been executed after discovering that
Lt. Gen. Zekai Aksakallı, in charge of the Special Forces Command at the time, was working
covertly with Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MIT) "in running illegal and
clandestine operations in Syria for personal gain while dragging Turkey deeper into the Syrian
civil war."
"[Terzi] knew how much of the funding delivered [to Turkey] by Qatar for the purpose of
purchasing weapons and ammunition for the opposition was actually used for that and how much of
it was actually used by public officials, how much was embezzled," Col. Alakuş was quoted
as saying by the Nordic Monitor via his court testimony.
The Nordic Monitor said in its report published on Friday that Alakuş testified that
Aksakallı had run a gang outside of the chain of command within the Turkish intelligence
that was involved in illicit activities.
The report further alleged that Terzi was aware of public officials involved in
oil-smuggling operations with ISIS from Syria.
"[Terzi] was aware of who in the government was involved in an oil-smuggling operation from
Syria, how the profits were shared, and what activities they were involved in," Alakuş
said in his testimony.
PS likbez@46 reminded me of a line from the movie Reds. Warren Beatty's John Reed spoke of
people who "though Karl Marx wrote a good antitrust law." This was not a favorable comment.
The confusion of socialism and what might be called populism is quite, quite old. Jack
London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the
normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class
paradise of equal competition. It wasn't conspiracies.
likbez 07.29.20 at 3:30 pm
@steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (51)
Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War
that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the
middle class paradise of equal competition.
I think the size of the USA military budget by itself means the doom for the middle class,
even without referring to famous Jack London book (The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's
biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four.).
Wall Street and MIC (especially intelligence agencies ; Allen Dulles was a Wall Street
lawyer) are joined at the hip. And they both fully control MSM. As Jack London aptly said:
"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist
class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it
serves it." ― Jack London, The Iron Heel
Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars.
In a sense, Bolton is the symbol of financial capitalism foreign policy.
It is important to understand that finance capitalism creates positive feedback loop in the
economy increasing instability of the system. So bubbles are immanent feature of finance
capitalism, not some exception or the result of excessive greed.
Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, and U.S.
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, working together, and here is the background for
it, and the way -- and the reasons -- that it was done:
Back in the later Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church and its aristocracies had used
religious fervor in order to motivate very conservative and devout people to invade foreign
countries so as to spread their empire and to not need to rely only on taxes in order to fund
these invasions, but also to highly motivate them by their faith in a heavenly reward. It was
far cheaper this way, because these invading forces wouldn't need to be paid so much; the
reason why they'd be far cheaper is that their pay would chiefly come to them in their
afterlife (if at all). That's why people of strong faith were used. (Aristocracies always rule
by deceiving the public, and faith is the way.) Those invaders were Roman Catholic Crusaders,
and they went out on Crusades to spread their faith and so 'converted' and slaughtered millions
of Muslims and Jews, so as to expand actually the aristocracies' and preachers' empire, which
is the reason why they had been sent out on those missions (to win 'converts'). This was
charity, after all. (Today's large tax-exempt non-profits are no different -- consistently
promoting their aristocracy's invasions, out of 'humanitarian' concern for the 'welfare', or
else 'souls', of the people they are invading -- and, if need be, to kill 'bad people'. This
has been the reality. And it still is. It's the way to sell imperialism to individuals who
won't benefit from imperialism -- make mental slaves of them.)
The original Islamic version of the Christian Crusades, Islamic Holy
War or "jihad," started on 14 November 1914 in Constantinople (today's Istanbul) when the
Sheikh Hayri Bey, the supreme religious
authority in the Ottoman Empire , along with the Ottoman Emperor, Mehmed V , declared a Holy War for their Muslim
followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War
I. They were on Germany's side, and lost. (That's the reason why the Ottoman Empire ended.)
Both
the Sheikh and the Emperor had actually been selected -- and then forced -- by Turkey's
aristocracy, for them to declare Islamic Holy War at that time. In fact, the sitting Sheikh,
Mehmet
Cemaleddin Efendi , in 1913, was actually an opponent of the pro-German and
war-oriented policy of the Union and Progress Party, which represented Turkey's aristocrats,
and so that Sheikh was replaced by them, in order to enable a declaration of Islamic Holy War.
Jihad actually had its origin in Turkey's aristocracy -- not in the Muslim masses, and not even
in the Muslim clergy. It resulted from an overly ambitious Turkish aristocracy, hoping to
extend their empire. It did not result from the public. And, at that time, relatively few
Muslims followed this 'Holy' command, which is one reason why the Ottoman Empire soon
thereafter ended.
The fact that the decision about the Armenians was made after a great deal of thought,
based on extensive debate and discussion by the Central Committee of the CUP [Committee for
Union and Progress] , can be understood by looking at other sources of information as well.
The indictment of the Main Trial states as follows: ''The murder and annihilation of the
Armenians was a decision taken by the Central Committee of the Union and Progress Party.''
These decisions were the result of ''long and extensive discussions.'' In the indictment are
the statements of Dr. Nazım to the effect that ''it was a matter taken by the Central
Committee after thinking through all sides of the issue'' and that it was ''an attempt to reach
a final solution to the Eastern Question .'' 54 In his memoirs, which were published in
the newspaper Vakit, Celal, the governor of Aleppo, describes the same words being spoken to
him by a deputy of the Ottoman Parliament from Konya, coming as a ''greeting of a member of the
Central Committee .'' This deputy told Celal that if he had ''expressed an opinion that
opposed the point of view of the others, [he would] have been expelled .''
55
(And, consequently, when Hitler allegedly -- on 22 August 1939 , right before his
invasion of Poland which started WW II, and it is
on page 2 here , but the sincerity and even the authenticity of that alleged private
'speech' by him should be questioned and not accepted outright by historians -- cited Turkey's
genocide against Armenian Christians as being proof that genocide is acceptable, Hitler would
actually have been citing there not only a Muslim proponent of genocide, but an ally of Germany
who had actually done it, because the Ottoman Empire's aristocracy had been both Muslim and
German-allied. Hitler would, in that 'speech', if he actually said it, have been citing that
earlier ally of Germany, which had actually genocided Christians. The genocide happened, even
if that speech mentioning it was concocted by some propagandist during WW II.)
The new jihad, or Islamic version of the Crusades, is, however, very different from the one
that had started on 14 November 1914. It wasn't Turkish, it instead came straight from Turkey's
top competitor to lead the world's Muslims, the royal family who owned Saudi Arabia, the Sauds.
But they partnered with America's aristocracy, in creating it.
Today's jihadism started in 1979, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (a born Polish nobleman), and his colleague Prince Bandar bin
Sultan al Saud, re-created jihad or Islamic Holy War, in order to produce a dirt-cheap army of
Pakistani fundamentalist Sunni students or "mujahideen," soon to be renamed Taliban (
Pashto &
Persian ṭālibān, plural of ṭālib student, seeker, from Arabic )
so as to invade and conquer next door to the Soviet Union the newly Soviet-allied Afghanistan,
and to turn it 'pro-Western', now meaning both anti-Soviet, and anti-Shiite. (The Saud family
hate Shiites , and so do America's
aristocrats, whose CIA had conquered Shiite Iran in 1953, and who became outraged when Shiites
retook Iran in 1979. And, from then on, America's aristocracy, too, have hated Shiites and have
craved to re-conquer Iran. By contrast, the Sauds had started in 1744 to hate Shiites.) So, modern Islamic Holy War started
amongst fundamentalist Sunnis in Pakistan in 1979, against both the Soviets and the Iranians
(and now against both
Russia and Iran ). Here is a video of Brzezinski actually doing that -- starting the
"mujahideen" (subsequently to become the Taliban) onto this 'Holy War':
Brzezinski ,
incidentally, had been born a Roman Catholic Polish aristocrat whose parents hated and despised
Russians, and this hostility went back to the ancient conflicts between the Roman Catholic and the
Russian Orthodox Churches.
So: whereas on the American end this was mainly a Roman Catholic versus Orthodox operation,
it was mainly a Sunni versus Shiite operation on the Saudi end.
Here's more of the personal background regarding the co-creation, by the aristocracies of
America and of Saudi Arabia, of today's jihadism, or "radical Islamic terrorism":
Whereas Nelson Rockefeller in the Republican Party sponsored Harvard's Henry Kissinger as
the geostrategist and National Security Advisor, David Rockefeller in the Democratic Party
sponsored Harvard's and then Columbia's Zbigniew Brzezinski as the geostrategist and National
Security Advisor. The Rockefeller family was centrally involved in controlling the U.S.
Government.
According to pages 41-44 of David B. Ottaway's 2008 The
King's Messenger: Prince Bandar , U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose National Security
Advisor was Brzezinski, personally requested and received advice from a certain graduate
student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Saudi Prince Bandar
bin Sultan al Saud, regarding geostrategy. At the time, Brzezinski commented favorably on
Bandar's graduate thesis. But that's not all. "Secretly, Carter had already turned to the
kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading
for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd's reply, according to Bandar, was 'Tell my
friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not
be disappointed.'13 The king was true to his world." However, Bandar's advice went beyond oil.
And the re-creation, of the fundamentalist-Sunni movement (amongst only fundamentalist Sunni
Muslims, both in 1914 and in 1979), that now is called "jihadism," was a joint idea, from both
Brzezinski and Bandar.
It was the United States that, together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, and Pakistan, dispatched the jihadists to Afghanistan. Prince Bandar bin Sultan of
Saudi Arabiaplayed a key rolein those operations, with Saudi Arabia providing the key
financial, military and human support for them. The kingdom encouraged its citizens to go to
Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army. One such citizen was Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia agreed
to match, dollar for dollar, any funds that the CIA could raise for the operations. The
U.S.provided Pakistan with $3.2 billion, and Saudi Arabia bought weapons from
everywhere, including international black markets, and sent them to Afghanistan through
Pakistan's ISI.
That was then, and this is now, but it is merely an extension of that same operation, even
after the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended in
1991, and Russia ended its side of the Cold War but the United States secretly continued its side , as is shown here,
by an example. This example, of America's continuing its Cold War, is America's longstanding
effort, after the death of FDR in 1945, to overthrow and replace Syria's pro-Russian Government
and install instead a Syrian Government that will be controlled by the Sauds:
So, in this new 'Islamic holy war', to overthrow Syria's non-sectarian Government, the
fighters entered Syria through Turkey, and they were welcomed mainly in Syria's province of
Idlib, which adjoins Turkey.
On 13 March 2012, the Al Jazeera TV station, of the pro-jihad Thani royal family of Qatar,
headlined "Inside
Idlib: Saving Syria" , and opened
The Syrian government crackdown on the dissenting northern city of Idlib has continued
for a third day, with casualties from random shelling and sniper fire mounting, and growing
concerns for many citizens detained by government forces. "I can't tell you what an unequal
contest this is . The phrase that we felt yesterday applied to it was 'Shooting fish in a
barrel' – these people can't escape, they can't help themselves, they have very little
weaponry, what can they do but sit there and take it?"
The UK Government had given Qatar to the Thanis in 1868. On 12
September 1868 , Mohammed Bin Thani signed "an agreement with the British Political
Resident Col. Lewis Pelly, which was considered as the first international recognition of the
sovereignty of Qatar"; so, on that precise day, Britain's Queen Victoria gave Qatar to his
family, which owns it, to the present day. The Thanis are the leading financial backers of the
Muslim Brotherhood, which spreads Thani influence to foreign countries. (At least up till 9/11,
the Saud family have been the main financial
backers of Al Qaeda .) The Thanis have been, along with the Sauds, the main financial
backers of replacing the non-sectarian Syrian Government by a fundamentalist-Sunni Syrian
Government. Whereas the Sauds want to control that new government, also the Thanis do, and this
is one reason for the recent falling-out between those two families. America's aristocracy
prefers that Syria's rulers will be selected by the Saud family, because they buy more weapons
from the U.S. than does any other country. However, everything is transactional between
aristocracies, and, so, international alliances can change. It's always a jostling, everyone
grabbing for whatever they can get: aristocracies operate no differently than crime-families
do, because FDR's dream of an anti-imperialistic U.N., which would set and enforce
international laws, died when he did; we live instead in an internationally lawless world -- he
died far too soon. In a sense (at least ideologically), Hitler won, but, actually, Churchill
did (he was as much an imperialist as Hitler and Mussolini were).
Anyway, uncounted tens of thousands of jihadists from all over the world descended upon
Syria, funded by the Sauds and the Thanis, and armed and trained by the United States, to
conquer Syria. At the Syrian Government's request,
Russia started bombing the jihadists on 30 September 2015 . That air-support for the Syrian
Army turned the war around. By the time of 4 May 2018, Britain's Financial Times
headlined "Idlib offers uncertain sanctuary
to Syria's defeated rebels" ("rebels" being the U.S. and UK Governments' term for jihadists
who were serving as the U.S., Saud and Thani, proxy-forces or mercenaries to conquer Syria) and
reported (stenographically transmitting what the CIA and MI6 told them to say) that, "more than
70,000 rebels and civilians" -- meaning jihadists and their families -- who were "fleeing the
last rebel holdout near the capital," had been given a choice, and this "choice was die in
Ghouta, or leave for Idlib," and chose to get onto the Government-supplied buses taking them to
Idlib. So, perhaps unnumbered hundreds of thousands of jihadists did that, from all over Syria,
and collecting them in Idlib.
On May 8th, Syria's Government bannered,"6th batch of terrorists leave
southern Damascus for northern Syria"and reported that "During the past five days,
218 buses carrying terrorists with their families exited from the three towns to Jarablos and
Idleb under the supervision of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent." Jarablos (or "Jarabulus")
is a town or "District" in the Aleppo Governate; and Idleb (or "Idlib") is the
capital District in the adjoining Governate of Idlib, which Governate is immediately to the
west of Aleppo Governate; and both Jarabulus and Idlib border on Turkey to the north. Those two
towns in Syria's far northwest are where captured jihadists are now being sent.
The Government is doing that because at this final stage in the 7-year-long war, it wants
civilian deaths and additional destruction of buildings to be kept to a minimum, and so is
offering jihadists the option of surviving instead of being forced to fight to the death (which
would then require Syria's Government to destroy the entire area that's occupied by the
terrorists); this way, these final clean-up operations against the terrorists won't necessarily
require bombing whole neighborhoods -- surrenders thus become likelier, so as to end the war as
soon as possible, and to keep destruction and civilian casualties at a minimum.
The Syrian and Russian Governments had planned to finish them off there in Idlib, so that
none of them could escape back into their home countries to continue their jihad. However, the
U.S. and its allies raised 'humanitarian' screams at the U.N. and other international
organizations, in order to protect the 'rebels' against the 'barbarous dictator' of Syria, its
President, Bashar al-Assad -- just in order to create more anti-Assad (and anti-Russian, and
anti-Iranian) propaganda. And, so, on 9 and 10 September 2018, Putin and Erdogan and Rouhani
met in Rouhani's Tehran to decide what to do. By that time, Erdogan was riding the fence
between Washington and Moscow. On 17 September 2018, I headlined "Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended" and
reported that Putin and Rouhani entrusted Idlib to Erdogan, with the expectation that Erdogan
would keep the jihadists penned-up there, so that Putin and Assad would be able to bomb them to
hell after the 'humanitarian crisis' in Idlib would be no longer on front pages.
The role of the United Nations in this has been to stand aside and pretend that it's a
'humanitarian crisis' (as the U.S. regime wanted it to be called) instead of a U.S.-and-allied
invasion, aggressive war, and consequently a vast war-crime such as Hitler's top leaders were
prosecuted and executed for at Nuremberg. As Miri Wood wrote, at Syria News, on 28
February 2018 :
Members of the General Assembly must be in good financial standing to vote. Dues are on a
sliding scale but do not factor in draconian sanctions against targeted members, nor crimes of
war involved in their destruction. As such, CAR, Libya, Venezuela and Yemen have been stripped
of their voting rights. The non-permanent SC members function as obedient House Servants to the
P3 bullies, ever mindful of placing self-preservation above moral integrity .
So Truman's U.N. turns out to be on the side of the new Nazism, against its victims.
Erdogan wants to be with the winners. He evidently believes that whatever empire he'll be
able to have will be just a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire. He had been
extremely reluctant to accept this viewpoint , but, apparently, he now does. And so, now,
Erdogan has become so confident that he has the backing of Christian-majority America and of
Christian-majority Europe, so that Turkey's
Hagia Sophia , which had been "the world's largest cathedral
for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520," has finally become
officially declared by the Turkish Government to be, instead, a mosque. He feels safe enough to
insult the publics in the other NATO countries so as to be able now to assert publicly his
support for Islam against Christianity, because he knows that NATO's other
aristocracies -- all of them majority-Christian, and all of these aristocrats ruling their
respective Christian-majority countries -- don't really give a damn about that. Amongst
themselves, the concern for 'heaven' is all just for show, because they are far more interested
to buy Paradise in the here-and-now, for themselves and for their families. As for any possible
'afterlife', it will be reflected in the big buildings and charities that will bear their
names, after they're gone. Erdogan feels safe, knowing that they're all psychopaths. And, as
for the publics anywhere -- Syria, Libya, even in Turkey itself -- they don't matter, to him,
any more than they do to the leaders of those other NATO countries.
Turkish forces started recruiting numbers of its armed fighters to send them to
Azerbaijan in order to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the Armenian army.
According to sources, Turkey opened special promotion offices in different parts of Afrin
northern Aleppo, to attract the militants and encourage them to sign contracts by which they
would move to fight in Azerbaijan for a period of six months, renewable in case they wanted
to.
According to the contract, the militants receive a monthly salary of $2500, while the
advantage of granting Turkish citizenship to the families of the militants in case they died is
absent, contrary to the contracts that Turkey had signed with the armed men who wanted to move
to Libya.
The sources said that Turkey has designated centers for registering militants wishing to
fight in Azerbaijan within the towns of Genderes and Raju, along with Afrin city, and these
centers have already started receiving requests by the militants.
Armenia is virtually 100% Christian, and, according to Wikipedia :
The Armenian Genocide[c](also known as the Armenian
Holocaust )[13]was the systematic mass
murder and expulsion of 1.5 million[b]ethnicArmenianscarried out in Turkey and adjoining regions by theOttoman governmentbetween 1914 and 1923.[14][15]The starting date is
conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested,
and deported fromConstantinople(now Istanbul) to the region of Angora (Ankara),235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders, the majority of whom
were eventually murdered.
So, the recruitment of fundamentalist-Sunni mercenaries in the areas of Syria that Turkey
has captured, and sending those men "to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the
Armenian army," is likewise consistent with the NATO member-country Turkey's restoration of its
former Ottoman Empire. Using these jihadist proxy-soldiers, NATO is now invading Christian
Armenia.
However, Iskef was reporting without paying any attention to the aristocratic interests
which were actually very much involved in what Erdogan was doing here. On July 19th, Cyril
Widdershoven at the "Oil Price" site bannered
"The Forgotten Conflict That Is Threatening Energy Markets" and he reported the economic
geostrategic factors which were at stake in this now-emerging likely hot war, which is yet
another "pipeline war," and which pits Turkey against Russia. In this particular matter, Turkey
has an authentic economic reason to become engaged in a possible hot war allied with Muslim
Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia. Russia, yet again, would be backing Christian soldiers.
Of course, NATO, also yet again, would be on the Muslim side, against the Christians. But, this
time, NATO would be backing Azerbaijan, which is 85% Shiite. Consequently, in such a conflict,
the U.S. could end up on the same side as Iran, and against Russia.
If history is any guide, aristocratic interests will take precedence over theocratic
interests, but democratic interests -- the interests of the publics that are involved -- will
be entirely ignored. The sheer hypocrisy of the U.S. regime exceeds anything in human
history.
How can anybody not loathe the U.S. regime and its allies? Only by getting one's 'news' from
its 'news'-media -- especially (but not only) its mainstream ones.
The Congress is serving the interests of the US Oligarchy, at home and abroad. The
strategy is simple: keep allies/vassals in obeisance and non-competitive and destroy
polities that do not subject themselves to a similar system (which ends up to become
subservient to the US interests anyways, in the long run). Thus, all enemies are polities
were Oligarchy doesn't run the roster, and are semi-socialist / socialist countries:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the past Iraq.
Fully fledged democracies, that truly enact the will of the people, would not do
something like this.
For those too young to remember the horrible American war on Yugoslavia in 1999, or
those who have forgot, or were misled with lies about Kosovo, here is a quick summary:
This is a very accurate and honest report what { NATO } the North American Terrorist
Organization did to Yugoslavia . If you Americans wish to know what kind of global
government you are promoting . You only have to find the actual transcripts of Milosevic's
trail . Don't read or listen to any fake news of the trail . You must read the trail
transcripts and judge for yourself The butcher of Balkans has kind of been exonerated after
his death . The world court is something to be very afraid of not at all a instrument of
justice .But the trail transcripts are about 5000 pages so you will have to work to find
out the truth .
WW2 and it's depiction in various films and TV programs has had an unexpected effect on
the military psyche. The US believes it won the war on it's own and the troops came home as
heroes. This is the expectation of the US military even today, unable to accept that it can
be defeated. "Thank you for your service" is a given whatever crimes had been committed
abroad on the innocent who had done them no harm whatsoever. The ICC is opposed on the
theory that US troops cannot commit torture or massacres.
The Joke is that the US has not one a war since WWII, except maybe Granada. As for War
Crimes, the Current President himself committed a War Crime, He gave a Pardon to a
Convicted War Criminal, that is actually breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is US
Treaty Law and as such equal to the Constitution itself in importance. Schedule 4 Article
146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide
effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the
grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged
to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring
such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it
prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons
over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting
Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all
acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches
defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial
and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those
following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August
12, 1949.
Article 147
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present
Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling
a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present
Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 148
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High
Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party
in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
The President has by absolving the Navy Seal of the Liability, Absolved the United
States of the War Crime also, Now I understand that we will hear arguments here of the
Presidents ability to Pardon, but take this as a given, there is no way that During the
Nuremberg Trials the Prosecution of those War Crimes would have accepted the argument that
the Head of State of Germany (Hitler) had the blanket Authority to Pardon German War
Criminals. as such and this is why this was placed in the Geneva Conventions the very act
of Absolving a War Crime is itself a War Crime!
We could care less what the ICC is opposed to. We are not subject to the ICC or
international law. We can enforce it if needed but do not have to abide by it.
The micrograins of ICC jurisdiction and validity require a sharper legal mind than mine
to sift through. But the debate is revelatory of something else -
In general, the current domestic ICC debate reveals part of the true nature of the US
(helped in no small part by the hamfisted and transparent vulgarity of President Trump):
that we are in fact the rogue state that we accuse everyone else in the world of being.
If we are who we say we are we should be straight up supporting the ICC, helping to fund
it and increase its reach and investigative power. Far better than any military
intervention to deal with the truly bad actors in the world would be a legal intervention.
The idea that vicious and violent despots should run scared when they travel or otherwise
face arrest and extradition is exactly right.
But we're not. Why? The answer is obvious at this point - because we have powerful
players in our midst that would face that arrest. And should face that arrest.
Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of
commander Khalifa Haftar.
####
I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging
one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to
one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey
with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next,
Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.
"... While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The President canceled two arms treaties, imposed sanctions on Moscow, and sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington. ..."
"... "There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat during his years with the government. ..."
"... And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that can't fly . ..."
On June 26, in a major front page story, The New York Times
wrote that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan last
year. The story quickly unraveled.
While the military is investigating the allegations, Mark Miley, chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff says
there's no proof that Russian payments led to any US deaths. The National Security Agency
says it found
no communications intelligence supporting the bounty claim.
Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command, says he's not
convinced that American troops died as a result of Russian bounties.
"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," he
tellsThe Washington Post .
Sina Toossi, senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, tells me
the controversy reveals an internecine battle within the foreign policy establishment. "Many
in the national security establishment in Washington are searching for reasons to keep US
troops in Afghanistan," Toossi says. "This story plays into those broader debates."
Troop withdrawal?
Faced with no end to its unpopular war in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration negotiated an agreement with
the Taliban in February. Washington agreed to gradually pull out troops, and the Taliban
promised not to attack US personnel.
The Taliban and Afghan government are supposed to hold peace talks and release prisoners
of war. The US troop withdrawal won't be completed until May 2021, giving the administration
in power the ability to renege on the deal.
Nevertheless, powerful members of the Afghan intelligence elite and some in the US
national security establishment strongly object to the agreement and want to keep US troops
in the country permanently.
Matthew Hoh, who worked for the State Department in Afghanistan and is now a senior fellow
with the Center for
International Policy , tells me that the reports of Russian bounties likely originated
with the Afghanistan intelligence agency.
"The mention of Russia was a key word," says Hoh. CIA officials fast-tracked the Afghan
reports. They argued that Russia's interference, and Trump's failure to respond, only
emboldens the Russians.
Originally, the Times
claimed $500,000 in Russian bounty money was seized at the home of a Taliban operative
named Rahmatullah Azizi. He turned out to be an Afghan drug smuggler who had previously
worked as a contractor
for Washington.
The Times later admitted that
investigators "could not say for sure that it was bounty money."
Hoh says the alleged bounties make no sense politically or militarily. Last year, he says,
"The Taliban didn't need any incentives to kill Americans." And this year, it has stopped all
attacks on US forces as part of the February agreement.
But leading Democrats ignore the unraveling of the story in a rush to attack the White
House from the right. Joe Biden reached deep into his Cold War tool box to blast Trump.
"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this
egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin," Biden
told a town hall meeting.
Demonizing Russia
While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line
against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The
President canceled
two arms treaties,
imposed sanctions on Moscow, and
sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine.
Both high-ranking Republicans and Democrats benefit politically by creating an evil
Russian enemy, according to Vladimir Pozner, Putin critic and host of a popular Russian TV
interview program.
The bounty accusation "keeps the myth alive of Putin and Russia being a vicious,
cold-blooded enemy of the US," Pozner tells me.
Some call it the foreign policy establishment; others say the national security state or
simply the Deep State. A group of officials in the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence
agencies and war industries have played an outsized role in foreign policy for decades. And
it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and
State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring
secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the
pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington.
"There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat
during his years with the government.
The Deep State is not monolithic, he cautions. "You won't find a backroom with guys
smoking cigars. But there is a notion of US primacy and a bent towards military
intervention."
And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan
report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the
Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies
revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that
can't fly .
"It's Russia hysteria," says Hoh.
Afghans suffer
While the Washington elite wage internal trench warfare, the people of Afghanistan suffer.
More than 100,000 Afghans have died because of the war, with 10,000
casualties each year, according to the United Nations . The Pentagon
reports 2,219 US soldiers
died and 20,093 were wounded in the Afghan war.
A lesser imperialist power, Russia has its own interests in Afghanistan. It has taken
advantage of the US decline in the region to expand influence in Syria and Libya.
According to Pozner, Russia doesn't favor a Taliban government in Afghanistan. The Kremlin
considers the Taliban a dangerous terrorist organization. But if the Taliban comes to power,
Pozner says, "Russia would like to have stable relations with them. You have to take things
as they are and build as good a relationship as possible."
Neither Russia nor any other outside power has the means or desire to control Afghanistan.
At best, they hope for a stable neighbor, not one trying to spread extremism in the
region.
That's been the stated US goal for years. Ironically, it can't be achieved until US troops
withdraw.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him onTwitter, @ReeseErlich; friend him onFacebook; and visit hiswebpage.
"... Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41. ..."
"... Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from power. ..."
"... Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of ..."
SCOTT RITTER: Powell & Iraq -- Regime Change, Not Disarmament: The Fundamental
Lie July 18, 2020 Save
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
T he New York Times Magazine has published a puff piece soft-peddling former
Secretary of State Colin Powell's role in selling a war on Iraq to the UN Security Council
using what turned out to be bad intelligence. "Colin Powell Still Wants Answers" is the title
of the article, written by Robert Draper. "The analysts who provided the intelligence," a
sub-header to the article declares, "now say it was doubted inside the CIA at the time."
Draper's article is an extract from a book, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration
Took America into Iraq , scheduled for publication later this month. In the interest of
full disclosure, I was approached by Draper in 2018 about his interest in writing this book,
and I agreed to be interviewed as part of his research. I have not yet read the book, but can
note that, based upon the tone and content of his New York Times Magazine article, my
words apparently carried little weight.
Regime Change, Not WMD
I spent some time articulating to Draper my contention that the issue with Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but rather regime change, and that
everything had to be viewed in the light of this reality -- including Powell's Feb. 5, 2003
presentation before the UN Security Council. Based upon the content of his article, I might as
well have been talking to a brick wall.
Powell's 2003 presentation before the council did not take place in a policy vacuum. In many
ways, the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a continuation of
the 1991 Gulf War, which Powell helped orchestrate. Its fumbled aftermath was again, something
that transpired on Powell's watch as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the
administration of George H. W. Bush.
Powell at UN Security Council. (UN Photo)
Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that
Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled
the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution
in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's
post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41.
Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to
continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security
Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD
prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these
sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from
power.
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
I bore witness to the reality of this policy as a weapons inspector working for the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), created under the mandate of resolution 687 to oversee the
disarming of Iraq's WMD. Brought in to create an intelligence capability for the inspection
team, my remit soon expanded to operations and, more specifically, how Iraq was hiding retained
weapons and capability from the inspectors.
SCUDS
UN weapons inspectors in central Iraq, June 1, 1991. (UN Photo)
One of my first tasks was addressing discrepancies in Iraq's accounting of its modified SCUD
missile arsenal; in December 1991 I wrote an assessment that Iraq was likely retaining
approximately 100 missiles. By March 1992 Iraq, under pressure, admitted it had retained a
force of 89 missiles (that number later grew to 97).
After extensive investigations, I was able to corroborate the Iraqi declarations, and in
November 1992 issued an assessment that UNSCOM could account for the totality of Iraq's SCUD
missile force. This, of course, was an unacceptable conclusion, given that a compliant Iraq
meant sanctions would need to be lifted and Saddam would survive.
The U.S. intelligence community rejected my findings without providing any fact-based
evidence to refute it, and the CIA later briefed the Senate that it assessed Iraq to be
retaining a force of some 200 covert SCUD missiles. This all took place under Powell's watch as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I challenged the CIA's assessment, and organized the largest, most complex inspection in
UNSCOM's history to investigate the intelligence behind the 200-missile assessment. In the end,
the intelligence was shown to be wrong, and in November 1993 I briefed the CIA Director's
senior staff on UNSCOM's conclusion that all SCUD missiles were accounted for.
Moving the Goalposts
The CIA's response was to assert that Iraq had a force of 12-20 covert SCUD missiles, and
that this number would never change, regardless of what UNSCOM did. This same assessment was in
play at the time of Powell's Security Council presentation, a blatant lie born of the willful
manufacture of lies by an entity -- the CIA -- whose task was regime change, not
disarmament.
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still delivered his speech to the UN Security
Council.
In October 2002, in a
briefing designed to undermine the credibility of UN inspectors preparing to return to
Iraq, the Defense Intelligence Agency trotted out Dr. John Yurechko, the defense intelligence
officer for information operations and denial and deception, to provide a briefing detailing
U.S. claims that Iraq was engaged in a systematic process of concealment regarding its WMD
programs.
John Yurechko, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, briefs reporters at the Pentagon on Oct.
8, 2002 (U.S. Defense Dept.)
According to Yurechko, the briefing was compiled from several sources, including "inspector
memoirs" and Iraqi defectors. The briefing was farcical, a deliberate effort to propagate
misinformation by the administration of Bush 43. I know -- starting in 1994, I led a concerted
UNSCOM effort involving the intelligence services of eight nations to get to the bottom of
Iraq's so-called "concealment mechanism."
Using innovative imagery intelligence techniques, defector debriefs, agent networks and
communications intercepts, combined with extremely aggressive on-site inspections, I was able,
by March 1998, to conclude that Iraqi concealment efforts were largely centered on protecting
Saddam Hussein from assassination, and had nothing to do with hiding WMD. This, too, was an
inconvenient finding, and led to the U.S. dismantling the apparatus of investigation I had so
carefully assembled over the course of four years.
It was never about the WMD -- Powell knew this. It was always about regime change.
Using UN as Cover for Coup Attempt
In 1991, Powell signed off on the incorporation of elite U.S. military commandos into the
CIA's Special Activities Staff for the purpose of using UNSCOM as a front to collect
intelligence that could facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein. I worked with this special
cell from 1991 until 1996, on the mistaken opinion that the unique intelligence, logistics and
communications capability they provided were useful to planning and executing the complex
inspections I was helping lead in Iraq.
This program resulted in the failed coup attempt in June 1996 that used UNSCOM as its
operational cover -- the coup failed, the Special Activities Staff ceased all cooperation with
UNSCOM, and we inspectors were left holding the bag. The Iraqis had every right to be concerned
that UNSCOM inspections were being used to target their president because, the truth be told,
they were.
Nowhere in Powell's presentation to the Security Council, or in any of his efforts to recast
that presentation as a good intention led astray by bad intelligence, does the reality of
regime change factor in. Regime change was the only policy objective of three successive U.S.
presidential administrations -- Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
Powell was a key player in two of these. He knew. He knew about the existence of the CIA's
Iraq Operations Group. He knew of the successive string of covert "findings" issued by U.S.
presidents authorizing the CIA to remove Saddam Hussein from power using lethal force. He knew
that the die had been cast for war long before Bush 43 decided to engage the United Nations in
the fall of 2002.
Powell Knew
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still allowed himself to be used as a front to sell this
conflict to the international community, and by extension the American people, using
intelligence that was demonstrably false. If, simply by drawing on my experience as an UNSCOM
inspector, I knew every word he uttered before the Security Council was a lie the moment he
spoke, Powell should have as well, because every aspect of my work as an UNSCOM inspector was
known to, and documented by, the CIA.
It is not that I was unknown to Powell in the context of the WMD narrative. Indeed, my name
came up during an
interview Powell gave to Fox News on Sept. 8, 2002, when he was asked to comment on a quote
from my speech to the Iraqi Parliament earlier that month in which I stated:
"The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been
backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of
weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United
States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."
"We have facts, not speculation. Scott is certainly entitled to his opinion but I'm afraid
that I would not place the security of my nation and the security of our friends in the
region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any
longer If Scott is right, then why are they keeping the inspectors out? If Scott is right,
why don't they say, 'Anytime, any place, anywhere, bring 'em in, everybody come in -- we are
clean?' The reason is they are not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what
we're going to do about it. And that's why it's been the policy of this government to insist
that Iraq be disarmed in accordance with the terms of the relevant UN resolutions."
UN inspectors in Iraq. (UN Photo)
Of course, in November 2002, Iraq did just what Powell said they would never do -- they let
the UN inspectors return without preconditions. The inspectors quickly exposed the fact that
the "high quality" U.S. intelligence they had been tasked with investigating was pure bunk.
Left to their own devices, the new round of UN weapons inspections would soon be able to give
Iraq a clean bill of health, paving the way for the lifting of sanctions and the continued
survival of Saddam Hussein.
Powell knew this was not an option. And thus he allowed himself to be used as a vehicle for
disseminating more lies -- lies that would take the U.S. to war, cost thousands of U.S. service
members their lives, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, all in the name of regime
change.
Back to Robert Draper. I spent a considerable amount of time impressing upon him the reality
of regime change as a policy, and the fact that the WMD disarmament issue existed for the sole
purpose of facilitating regime change. Apparently, my words had little impact, as all Draper
has done in his article is continue the false narrative that America went to war on the weight
of false and misleading intelligence.
Draper is wrong -- America went to war because it was our policy as a nation, sustained over
three successive presidential administrations, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. By 2002 the
WMD narrative that had been used to support and sustain this regime change policy was
weakening.
Powell's speech was a last-gasp effort to use the story of Iraqi WMD for the purpose it was
always intended -- to facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In this light, Colin
Powell's speech was one of the greatest successes in CIA history. That is not the story,
however, Draper chose to tell, and the world is worse off for that failed opportunity.
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.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
ofConsortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that puts Russia in a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of
the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.
hroughout the Trump years, various reporters have presented
to great fanfare one dubious, thinly sourced story after another about Moscow's supposedly nefarious plots against the United
States. The unsupported allegations about an illegal collusion between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government
spawned a host of subsidiary charges that
proved
to be bogus
. Yet, prominent news outlets, including the
New York Times
, the
Washington Pos
t, CNN, and
MSNBC ran stories featuring such shaky accusations as if they were gospel.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that
puts
Russia
in
a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of the Russia-Trump collusion narrative. The latest incident began when the
New
York Times
published a front-page article on June 28, based on an anonymous source within the intelligence community,
that Moscow had
put
a bounty
on the lives of American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. The predictable, furious reaction throughout the
media and the general public followed. When the White House insisted that the intelligence agencies had never informed either
the president or vice president of such reports, most press reactions were scornful.
As with so many other inflammatory news accounts dealing
with
Russia
,
serious doubts about the accuracy of this one developed almost immediately. Just days later, an unnamed intelligence official
told CBS reporter Catherine Herridge that the information about the alleged bounties
was
uncorroborated
. The source also revealed to Herridge that the National Security Agency (NSA) concluded that the
intelligence collection report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" and lacked
"sufficient reporting to corroborate any links." The report had reached "low levels" at the National Security Council, but it
did not travel farther up the chain of command. The Pentagon, which apparently had
originated
the bounty allegations
and tried to sell the intelligence agencies on the theory, soon retreated and issued
its
own statement
about the "unconfirmed" nature of the information.
There was a growing sense of déjŕ vu, as though the episode
was the second coming of the infamous, uncorroborated Steele dossier that caused the Obama administration to launch its 2016
collusion investigation. A number of conservative and antiwar outlets highlighted the multiplying doubts. They had somewhat
contrasting motives for doing so. Most conservative critics believed that it was yet another attempt by a hostile media to
discredit President Trump for partisan reasons. Antiwar types suspected that it was an attempt by both the Pentagon and the
top echelons of some intelligence agencies to use the media to generate more animosity toward
Russia
and
thwart the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process that was still in its early stages following Washington's
February 29, 2020, peace accord with the Taliban.
The bounty stories certainly had that effect.
Congressional hawks in both parties immediately
called
for a delay
in further withdrawals while the allegations were investigated. They also made yet more "Trump is Putin's
puppet" assertions. Nancy Pelosi
could
not resist
hurling another smear with that theme. "With him, all roads lead to Putin," Pelosi said. "I don't know what the
Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially."
Despite the growing cloud of uncertainty about the source
or accuracy of the bounty allegation, several high-profile journalists treated it as though it was incontrovertible. A
typically blatant, hostile spin was evident in a
New York Times
article
by
Michael Crowley and Eric Schmitt. The principal "evidence" that they cited for the intelligence report was the earlier story
in their own newspaper. An admission that there were divisions within the intelligence agencies about the report, the authors
buried far down in their article.
High-level intelligence personnel giving the president
verbal briefings did not deem the bounty report sufficiently credible, much less alarming, to bring it to his attention.
Former intelligence official Ray McGovern reached a
blunt
conclusion
: "As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB
threshold."
Barbara Boland, a national security correspondent for the
American
Conservative
and a veteran journalist on intelligence issues, cited some "glaring problems" with the bounty charges. One
was that the Times' anonymous source stated that the assessment was based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and
criminals." Boland noted that John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that
captured senior al-Qaeda figure Abu Zubaydah in 2002, termed reliance on coercive interrogations "a red flag." Kiriakou
added, "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want
to hear." Boland reminded readers that under interrogation Khalid Sheik Mohammed made at least 31 confessions, "many of which
were completely false."
A second problem Boland saw with the bounty story was
identifying a rational purpose for such
a
Russian initiative
since it was apparent to everyone that Trump was intent on pulling U.S. troops out. Moreover, she
emphasized, only eight U.S. military personnel were killed during the first six months of 2020, and the
New York Times
story
could not verify that even one fatality resulted from a bounty. If the program existed at all, then it was extraordinarily
ineffective.
Nevertheless, most media accounts breathlessly repeated the
charges as if they were proven. In the
New York Times
, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt
asserted
that,
given the latest incident, "it doesn't require a top-secret clearance and access to the government's most classified
information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst days of the Cold War." Ray
McGovern responded to the Sanger-Schmitt article by impolitely reminding his readers about
Sanger's
dreadful record
during the lead-up to the Iraq War of uncritically repeating unverified leaks from intelligence sources
and hyping the danger of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Another prominent journalist who doubled down on the bounty
allegations was the
Washington Post's
Aaron
Blake
. The headline of his July 1 article read "The only people dismissing the Russia bounties intel: the Taliban, Russia
and Trump." Apparently, the NSA's willingness to go public with its doubts, as well as negative assessments of the allegations
by several veteran former intelligence officials, did not seem to matter to Blake. As evidence of how "serious" the situation
was (despite a perfunctory nod that the intelligence had not yet been confirmed), Blake quoted several of the usual hawks from
the president's own party.
As time passed, outnumbered media skeptics of the bounties
story nevertheless lobbed increasingly vigorous criticisms of the allegations. Their case for skepticism was warranted. It
became clear that even the CIA and other agencies that embraced the charges of bounties ascribed only "medium confidence" to
their conclusions. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
, there are three levels of
confidence, "high," "moderate," and "low." A "moderate" confidence level means "that the information is credibly sourced and
plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence." The NSA (and
apparently the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and possibly other portions of the intelligence community) gave the reports
the "low" confidence designation,
meaning
that
"the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly
corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that [there are] significant concerns or problems with the sources."
Antiwar journalist Caitlin Johnstone offered an especially
brutal
indictment
of the media's performance regarding the latest installment of the "Russia is America's mortal enemy" saga.
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile," she wrote, "but a special disdain should be
reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace
and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and
uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity?"
The media should not have ignored or blithely dismissed the
bounty allegation, but far too many members ran enthusiastically with a story based on extremely thin evidence, questionable
sourcing, and equally questionable logic. Once again, they seemed to believe the worst about Russia's behavior and Trump's
reaction to it because they had long ago mentally programmed themselves to believe such horror stories without doubt or
reservation. The
assessment
by
Alan MacLeod of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is devastatingly accurate. With regard to the bounty story, he
concluded, "evidence-free claims from nameless spies became fact" in most media accounts. Instead of sober, restrained
inquiries from a skeptical, probing press, readers and viewers were treated to yet another installment of over-the-top
anti-Russia diatribes. That treatment had the effect, whether intended or unintended, of promoting even more hawkish policies
toward Moscow and undermining the already much-delayed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It was a biased,
unprofessional performance that should do nothing to restore the public's confidence in the media's already tattered
credibility.
To clear the air, I recalled the "Non-Aligned Movement a forum of developing states not
formally aligned with or against any major power bloc or nations." It consist of - Nehru
India, Tito Yugoslavia, Bung Karno, Bapa Sukarno Indonesia, Zhou Enlai China, Habib Bourguiba
Tunisian, Norodom Sihanouk Cambodian, U Nu Burma, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser Egypt,
Fidel Castro Cuba, at the Bandung conference in 1955, the Non-Aligned Movement was born.
Later many nationalism leaders were disposed. How about Sukarno, did he "slaughter" the
Chinese? Nope that's from what I was told from BBC and it remains in my mind until uncle
tungstan and Lucci points out my mistakes, it was Suharto with CIA and Brit Foreign Office
that brought down Sukarno and Suharto was disposed his wife was known as Ten Percent.
I was growing up and aligned with Americans exceptionlism. It was after ww2 and
nationalism on the rise (almost) everywhere changed of government. In school each morning
assembled to raised the union jack and sing god save the freaking queen. That's when I was
indoctrinated from BBC the evils of communism and socialism. Western imperialist was the way
to go man. Much of my lunch hours in the library mainly reading, one book, my librarian
recommended The Jungle is Neutral by Spencer F, Chapman . The book still available and
probably my view has changed am no longer accepting the stupid Brit and Yank.
@ JC there is a recent book which analyses how the US policy of preventive mass murder and
torture in Indonesia has inspired policies, structures and knowhow in many of US client
states : https://vincentbevins.com/book/
Thank you for clearing the air on Sukarno. The Indonesian coup that destroyed the
democratic socialis government he led was a tragic loss to the people of Indonesia. The coup
leader Suharto fully backed by the CIA murdered many hundreds of thousands of civilians and
their elected officials and educators and medical staff. It was a ruthless murderous purge.
The Dulles brothers at the top.
Suharto then ruled for decades and Indonesia became the evil corruption ridden prison it
is today. This sad country is our planets exemplar failed state ruled by criminal oligarchs
and their owned courts and religion.
Indonesian people are great in their spirit and humility, they deserve better.
JC and others who have been conversing with him on the issue of the Indonesian military's
persecution and slaughter of Chinese Indonesians and others perceived to be Communist or
sympathetic to Communism or socialism might be interested in watching Joshua Oppenheimer's
"The Act of Killing" to see how small-time thugs and young people (especially those in the
Pancasila Youth movement) alike were caught up in the anti-Communist brainwashing frenzy in
Indonesia during the 1960s and participated in the mass persecution and slaughter
themselves.
Oppenheimer tracked down some of these former killers in North Sumatra and got them to
re-enact their crimes in whatever from they desired. For various reasons, some of them
psychological, they were quite enthusiastic about this idea. Significantly they chose to
re-enact their crimes as a Hollywood Western / Godfather-style pastiche film, even getting
their relatives and friends to play extras.
The mass murderers interviewed did well for themselves with some of them even becoming
politicians and rising to the level of Cabinet Minister in the Indonesian government. The
film also shows something of how deeply corruption is embedded in everyday life with one
prospective political candidate going around bribing villagers and demanding money from
small-time ethnic Chinese shopkeepers in his electorate and threatening them with violence if
they do not cough up.
The major issue I have with the film is that by focusing on these mass murderers in North
Sumatra, it misses the overall national and international political and social context that
still supports and applauds what these killers did. As long as this continues, the likelihood
that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of outsider groups and individuals, be they
Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists
in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West
in some way, will occur in the future is strong.
@ Jen 114
"As long as this continues, the likelihood that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of
outsider groups and individuals, be they Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox
Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of
Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West in some way, will occur in the future
is strong."
Yeah, "we" Anglos" are the only bad guys on this planet - not.
The CIA & co are not yet into slaughtering of Christians. Extremist Indonesian Sunni
Muslims were guilty in the above atrocities, continuing as harassments till today. Hard to
swallow: bad brown people do exist!
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the
salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full
spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US
elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of
neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA
now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the
politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the
foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers
sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S.
"leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.
Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if
necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners
die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's
apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.
One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited
the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments
and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations,
which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are
foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for
others.
The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time
attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what
would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation?
Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax
shelter.
Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's
treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for
reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to
intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for
foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore
require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign
peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.
The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally
ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal
officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to
sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and
peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting
everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.
Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of
Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of
foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the
president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still,
the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day
address.
Warned Adams:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there
will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance
of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of
freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She
might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit .
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a
spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has
been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of
mankind would permit, her practice."
Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American,
George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president.
Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an
extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding
when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign
influences.
Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous
1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in
the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses
today do, supposedly for America.
Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the
Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the
Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the
Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and
Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again
frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.
Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a
nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal
combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of
"union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the
transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the
name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the
world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern
American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after
which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.
Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy,
irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a
country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed
by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems
determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all
time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in
permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy.
Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America'
enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against
the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial
dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.
Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its
dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often,
and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be
designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become
essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed
enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and
manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.
George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought
to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all
should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual
fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is
clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's
unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single
word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George
Washington warned.
The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a
passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no
real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification."
This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists
revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs
Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade
the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of
thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet
provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians
and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have
betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or
justification."
On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US
Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to
destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve
their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US
Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of
umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute
occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the
best calculations of policy."
Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There
were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake.
Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was
constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped
replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption,
torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries, to America's horror.
Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's
policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through
passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation
subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the
victim."
What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty
regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a
corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even
after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey,
Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.
The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations
treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other
ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an
elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet
allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would
be threatening war.
Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China
along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to
Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to
the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to
treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile,
aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives."
This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages
officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington
observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain
over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless
imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with
ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which
created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks
and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed
enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support
against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre
eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered
before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God
of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped
to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.
Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was
prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities
do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead
public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments"
– the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security
interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the
president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many
other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who
demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security
importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and
lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer
foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.
What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor
isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic
should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all,
support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.
He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer
clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as
possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations'
"ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign
policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of
prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose
defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a
serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He
would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In
reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.
George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages.
America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his
good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
cultivate peace and harmony with all."
America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial.
As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have
learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and
foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all,
subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their
nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald
Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .
The headline
blares that it's a big "administration" conspiracy to play up doubts and play down proofs
of the bounties plot, but the text itself reveals that it's the National Intelligence Council
that did the new review and that even the CIA , the agency out in front on this story,
has only "medium" or "moderate" confidence on the reality of the plot. Meanwhile DoD and NSA
both still say they give it low confidence and cannot verify.
You gotta appreciate the desperate spin of the Times reporters and their editors
here:
"A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence, according to three officials."
Oh how cynical of the National Intelligence Council to "emphasize" doubts instead of
running with wild unverified claims! Their anonymous sources assure us that the memo "was
intended to bolster the Trump administration's attempts to justify its inaction" over the
alleged Russian interference. But intelligence officials tell the New York Times
lots of things .
I buried the lead nearly as badly as they did, but here it is before they go meandering
off saying nothing and refusing to acknowledge the importance of the following admission:
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed
with medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
"But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security
Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have
information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower
confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with
the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.'s was
higher than other agencies."
So Charlie Savage
admits that his whole stupid
story is based on a medium -confidence conclusion of the CIA against the
views of the NSA
and DoD . I wonder if he noticed the same people gave the story to the Wall Street
Journal and Washington Post at the same time as an
obvious attempt to use their stenography in a plot to prevent Trump from considering an
"early" withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"'Afghan officials said prizes of as much as $100,000 per killed soldier were offered
for American and coalition targets,' the Times reported. And yet, when Rukmini Callimachi, a
member of the reporting team breaking the story, appeared on MSNBC to elaborate further, she
noted that 'the funds were being sent from Russia regardless of whether the Taliban followed
through with killing soldiers or not. There was no report back to the GRU about casualties.
The money continued to flow.'
"There is just one problem -- that's not how bounties work."
And they will keep on jerking that rusty old chain.
Back in the CHOICES thread, we had discussion on the US bullying Iran, and the semantics
of whether the US was engaging in "war" against Iran. I hope not to get caught up in those
semantics again, but here are a couple of good pieces to show the situation.
The latest Renegade Inc episode interviews Gareth Porter, who draws from Smedley Butler
and talks about the "racket" of the security state of the US, which acts only to perpetuate
and extend itself, and to increase its funding by all means.
The episode answers several questions about the US posture towards Iran. Porter supplies
the history and background to illustrate the US anger for Iran. Sharmine Narwani makes an
appearance also, and together they show why the Pentagon will never conduct acts of war
against Iran that will provoke the kind of overt retaliation that Iran delivered by targeting
the US bases this year.
The US will only conduct acts that Iran will not overtly respond to. It will escalate its
theater right up to that red line, but if it crosses the line - as it did with killing
Soleimani - it will be by miscalculation. The only purpose of the US security state is to
escalate the threat level to keep the funding coming, and to leave no possible margin for
de-funding by Congress. It's a racket, and the racket has swallowed all statecraft.
Once I suggested seriously that Ukraine could not be understood in terms of statecraft,
but only in terms of thievery. It becomes increasingly clear that the tenets of organized
crime are now the only way to parse US action.
~~
Iran meanwhile, lives by statecraft. It will always respond when that red line is crossed
- always and without hesitation. My view is that Iran is continuously working for the total
departure of the US from West Asia, as it said that it would in retribution for Soleimani.
Much of what it does we don't see, but I note the "resistance" axis goes from strength to
strength in solidarity. It was ready to erupt when Iran attacked the US base, but the US
disengaged and this unified axis of several nations and forces stood down.
So the school of thought presented for example by Richard Steven Hack here, that
the US will war on Iran for decades if it can, simply to feed the MIC, is correct. What's not
correct is that the US can perform much in the way of military action against Iran.
We stumbled over the word "war" so perhaps we can talk about minor activities of warfare,
which are not enough to bring the theater to full battle. All the nations in the region have
tolerated US incursions because to fight them head on would provoke escalation that serves
less purpose than living with them - there is a time for everything.
But we have to understand the red lines. And we have to understand that because we see
nothing moving, it doesn't mean nothing is moving. Narwani makes some good points about that
- and see her full interview on Renegade from last year for a good understanding of what Iran
is as a nation and an adversary. It's clear that the Pentagon agrees with her.
As to the Resistance axis, this interview with Lebanese analyst Anees Naqqash is worth a
quick read. It tells us much about Lebanon.
It is not the case that Iran is doing nothing in response to US warfare against it and its
regional allies. The red flag is still flying, and the Iranians take it seriously.
War is no longer about winning. Endless conflict is the name of the game. Military defense
contractors are the most influential of all lobbyists and so intertwined in government that
it's truly & effectively fascist. Profit is the end, war is the means.
Isn't USA effectively at war with Venezuela? Isn't it an act of war to seize billions
in State assets - including embassies - and support a coup?
Isn't USA effectively at war with Syria? If ISIS has been defeated - as Trump has said
several times - then USA is illegally occupying Syria oil fields. In addition, USA
"recognized" Israel's claim to the Golan Heights - against UN resolutions that deny that
claim.
Isn't USA at war with Yemen? USA supplies Saudi Arabia and UAE with weapons for this
war plus targeting.
Isn't it an act of war to renege on terms to end a war? If so, then one could say that
USA has renewed it's war with North Korea.
Isn't it an act of war to impose a virtual embargo on a country via crippling
third-party sanctions? And wasn't the assassination of Solemani an act of war? Then USA is
effectively at war with Iran. Putin's reminder that Iran was a Russian ally after the
downing of the USA drone may be the reason that we are not in a hot war with Iran.
USA argued for a "two-state" solution for Palestine for two decades, then (under Trump)
switched almost entirely to Israel's side. That sounds like an act of war against the
"State" that USA has argued should exist.
Isn't USA still at war with the Taliban? Or is that just a 20-year "police action" like
Vietnam?
And what about Libya that NATO Turkey is seeking to conquer - after USA played a key
(and illegal) role in destroying?
And then there are tensions with Russia and China, which only seem to grow more intense
every week. The Trump Administration seeks to stop NordStream (for security reasons) and
punish China for Trump's inept pandemic response and for exercising control of Hong Kong
(which is long recognized as Chinese sovereign territory).
<> <> <> <> <>
IMO Trump has started wars but the countries and peoples he picks on know that it's
best not to respond too forcibly or they invite greater damage.
I'm surprised that moa commenters give any credence to the claims that portray Trump as
peaceful/peace-loving. In addition to his belligerence, Empire front-man Trump has initiated
a huge military build-up, ended long-standing peace treaties, and militarized space.
This is the standard Washington rhetoric that accompanies their coup attempts. It is a
companion to the "moderate democracy" rhetoric about U.S. satellite governments like Saudi
Arabia. The rhetoric tells you that these people have zero interest in democracy, honesty, or
avoiding hypocrisy. Some of Bush's neocons are Biden Supporters; what a surprise.
@ Jackrabbit 102
re: Isn't USA effectively at war with Venezuela?. . .etc
Obviously you don't know jack about actual war, do you.
Or give us your creds?
I dropped back in to see what follows...imagine my deflation to find that people don't know
what war is.
@108 Don Bacon
Precisely. No one who has ever experienced the tragedy of war will ever mistake the
playground games of make-believe war with the real thing.
~~
That's the problem with the US administration, and its satraps and the many camp followers
and court jesters who follow it. They don't know the difference between posturing war and
waging war.
The difference is so profound that it calls for not only a new language but a new
departure point of reference within one's soul even to begin to speak of such things.
The US will pursue the make-believe war it postures through in order to score points
within its small group circle. But real war, should it ever come to touch it - and it will if
it pursues its childishness too far - will shock it into total frozen fear the moment that it
strikes.
Iran knew this, and had the human strength to test it and to prove it. Everything else, up
to this point, was an accommodation by the world's nations to the posturing of the US for its
own internal coherence. It was a matter of supporting the US ego rather than of being close
to the event when that ego falls apart, with potentially explosive consequences.
But Iran had the strength of character to stand on its principles, and to proclaim its
truth. And by the way, that stand is by no means done, despite what the trolls may suggest.
Iran has barely begun its action to remove the US from Southwest Asia, and we will only see
the footprints of its actions as we realize that the US has departed. And this will happen,
regardless of the US narrative and its many parrots.
~~
I don't blame the US or any of its supporters for threatening war when all it really does
is act as a nuisance and a spoiler in those few platforms left to it. Those it oppresses have
so far mostly chosen to bear the insult rather than to make a fuss. But Iran has shown the
way, and one should not expect many more of those oppressed to put up with the abuse from the
US many more times.
What is clearly known is that the very last thing the US can do is go to war, in the real
meaning of that term. The very last thing the US is capable of, is war. And the generals of
all the nations of the world know this because they have seen the proof of it. Anyone who
doesn't see the proof of it is behind the curve, and may well have license to comment here
and elsewhere, but fortunately does not sit in the security councils of the nations of the
world.
~~
If anyone wants to think that the US is "effectively" at war with another nation, then
consider that Iran is absolutely "effectively" at war with the US, just as Hezbollah is
beyond any doubt at war with Israel. And so what? When positions are "effectively" this or
that, then they had better produce "effective" results. And it is only from these effective
results that we can count the coup of the engagement. Hezbollah and Iran don't need to be
told the difference between real attacks and propaganda attacks.
What they count is the real force.
Everything else is bluster. And I was 16 years old myself once, so in all humility I don't
condemn this braggadocio, which I understand all too humanly.
But neither do I take it as real in the real world.
@ Grieved 109
Thanks for helping to deliver us from all that illusory make-believe on war from the deep
thinkers who apparently man this place. And yes, Iran has shown the way, which includes its
ability to put a serious hurt on US forces if attacked. We're talking about the possibility
of lots of US dead bodies, military and dependents, men women and children, also sunken
ships, and not just some supporting proxies and aerial bombing with the attendant publicity
that suggests to some that genuine war exists, when it doesn't.
People need to get real.
Trump is really no different than Clinton, GWBush, and Obama. Each a front-man for the
Deep State/Empire. Each portrayed as well-meaning, peace-loving men that were FORCED! to war
for all the right reasons. In that context, these Jedi mind-tricks fall
flat:
USA can't wage war?
Yet it's bullying other countries and engaging in acts of war.
Trump's belligerence is all bluster?
Yet USA is preparing for war with a costly arms build-up and massive propaganda
campaign (as described well by Caitlin Johnstone).
No one need fear USA?
Yet power-elites in USA subscribe to supremacist ideologies (neoconservativism,
neoliberalism, zionism), advocate a "New World Order", and a 'rules-based' international
system that can only be described as "might makes right".
With only four months left to the U.S. presidential elections, and the increasing
likelihood of Donald Trump, the most pro-Israel President in history, losing, Israel has been
trying to provoke Iran to start a war, so that it can drag the United State into it. This is
not anything new. For over a decade Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to force the United
States to go to war with Iran, and Israel itself almost attacked Iran three times between
2010 and 2011. But the with events of the last several months darkening the prospects of a
second Trump term, Israel feels a new urgency for a war with Iran.
For over two years Israel tried to provoke Iran by attacking Iranian-backed Shiite forces
in Syria, but Iran has opted not to retaliate. Since the attacks did not provoke Iran to
retaliate, and also failed to dislodge Iran's military advisers and the Shiite forces that it
trained, armed, and dispatched to Syria, Israel has seemingly turned to attacking Iran
directly within its borders.
The events of past two months in Iran are indicative of Israel's new push for war. These
events include large-scale infernos, explosions, and cyberattacks, all believed to have been
carried out by Israel and its Iranian proxies, the "fake opposition" which is the part of the
opposition that supports economic sanctions and military attacks against Iran, and has even
allied itself with small secessionist groups that carry out terrorist attacks inside
Iran.
In this video, Prof. Wolff talks about the breakdown of the capitalist system and outlines
4 major problems that the US has been faced with without for quite some time with no solution
in sight: climate change, capitalism's intrinsic instability, systemic racism inherited from
slavery, and lastly the lack of mechanisms to manage viruses.
In this video, Prof. Wolff compares and contrasts the preparation for and management of
COVID-19 with how the US has managed military preparedness and the handling of military
confrontations and activities. It has succeeded at one and completely failed at the other. He
explains why.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 7 2020 1:09 utc | 96 Prediction: The US may start a war but the US
will not finish that war. Its opponent will end that war, by causing unacceptable losses to
the US - something quite easily achieved, and already proved to the world by Iran in this
very year of 2020.
I agree. The US can not defeat Iran, short of nuking Tehran, which is not in the cards for
geopolitical reasons. However, the US can devastate much of Iran's civilian infrastructure,
which, like most such infrastructures, can't run and hide. The US can also kill a million or
two milllion Iranians, as it proved in Iraq.
All that will do, however, is merely guarantee that Iran will never surrender. Nor would
Iran ever surrender in the first place. Which is why I tend to reference the upcoming war as
the "New Thirty Years War". The clear example is the near twenty years we've spent in
Afghanistan - which is vastly weaker than Iran. Each war - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and arguably
Iraq - has lasted longer than the last and with failure as an outcome.
The US can keep attacking Iran from the air and sea for thirty years - but without ever
defeating Iran. It will do so because the military-industrial complex will make profits every
year from that war - and in the end, that's all that matters to the US (along with the
Only if the US tries a land invasion will the US lose a massive number of troops. But even
that will come over time, albeit at a *much* higher rate than the US saw in either Vietnam,
Iraq, or Afghanistan. US annual casualties would probably be in the low to medium 5 digits
per year, as opposed to the low 4 digits in most of those wars. In other words, four or five
times the rate in Iraq. That's as compared with a hot war in North Korea which would see
50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days, or any war with China or Russia. See "United
States military casualties of war" on Wikipedia. It's possible that casualties could rise to
the level of WWI, if the war lasts five or ten years, or even WWII if it lasts twenty - or
even higher if it lasts thirty.
Most people think the US will not try a land invasion. I've argued, however, that the
*only* way to even attempt to prevent Iran from closing the Straits for the duration of the
war will be for the US to put several score thousand Marines and US troops on Iran's shores
to attempt to prevent launching of mines and anti-ship missiles. This would be difficult
since Iran has a long Persian Gulf shoreline, Iran has fortified that shoreline, there are
many places to launch weapons from that shoreline - and any such US troops would be subject
to both conventional and guerrilla war by the Iranian military and perhaps a million or more
Iranian Basij militia. Nonetheless, the US is likely to be dumb enough to try.
In any event, the US will eventually be forced to withdraw either because the US
electorate would eventually tire of the war - although as Afghanistan proves, that could take
a *very* long time, mostly depending on the casualty rate, however, as I indicateed - or
because another "threat" takes precedence, which would likely mean either Russia or
China.
"And the US will strain its mighty Wurlitzer to the utmost to declare victory as it
retreats."
Yup. And the sad part is that the US electorate will probably believe that, then forget
about the reality and be willing to commit to a new war within another ten years.
In addition to the above, the idea that because there's a difference between "war" and
"conflicts before war" there is *no chance* of war is absurd.
Every war started with this sort of enmity between nations historically. As I've said
before, with this level of enmity between the US and Iran, and arguably between the US and
Russia, and the US and China, war is inevitable. With the latter two countries, such a war is
likely to be nuclear - which is why it hasn't happened yet - that risk is *way* too high
(although it can still happen if a miscalculation causes a conventional war, which then
escalates into nuclear.)
A war with Iran doesn't have that risk. No nuclear power that I am aware of is going to
enter the war on Iran's side and thus risk a nuclear war over Iran. Iran itself will not
develop or use nuclear weapons. Israel *might* consider using nuclear weapons against Iran -
that would be a*huge* mistake geopolitically and probably result in Israel's destruction by
geopolitical means if not by military means. But neither Russia nor China are going to
directly engage the US military to defend Iran. That would be stupid and putting their own
national survival at risk for the benefit of another nation. As Percival Rose would say,
"That ain't gonna happen."
The real problem for some people is cognitive dissonance. They can't emotionally accept
the possibility of these wars occurring - so they don't. They are reduced to saying, "well,
it hasn't happened...yet."
The "yet" is the operative term. There is no logical extension of that term to mean
"never".
There are many other mistaken assumptions, such as:
USA wouldn't start a war it can't win
We've seen that USA is often satisfied with just smashing another country.
USA would strain to justify a war or continue a war
USA is very adept at propaganda. They can apply pressure that forces a country to
"lash out", or intervene to help an abused population or an ally. USA also likes to use
proxies. Example: destabilize with "freedom fighters" then intervene when the target
country commits "atrocities" as it attempts to defend itself.
Trump is a negotiator, he doesn't want to fight
Trump is a stooge. The Deep State will decide when they're ready to fight.
Americans are tired of war
If only that were true. Most Americans just don't care. And are willing to accept
what ever lies they're told (at least for the first months).
What is plain to see is all of these "wars" are not wars but provocations, aggression from
one side and bullying. In every case the other side does not want a war.
Interesting how the US has way upped its aggression on Venezuela without a peep from the
people. This started off with some nonsense about an idiot named Guaido and is now full blown
nastiness.
Sadly they are not the only stooges. It beggars belief that people everywhere believe that
they can elect someone to change the system in the country in which they reside. Political
stripes have very little meaning as the differences are incremental at best. The
bureaucracies necessary to keep the modern systems of governance afloat are staggeringly
monolithic. Electing one individual, or party, or parties and presuming that the system will
somehow be improved upon is a laughable fantasy. It leads to a continuous cycle of four years
of initiatives to tear down the previous four years initiatives unless you're a second term
government. But actual change is still the sole purview of the entrenched bureaucracy or
"deep state" or whatever other label you prefer. To Jackrabbit's point, most decisions hinge
on whether or not the bureaucracies in charge believe a war, a social change etc. can be
implemented and a desired result achieved. It takes a finely developed sense of myopia to
think that the only stooges are those of the political class. Says volumes about the people
that put them there, and continues to suggest that they are electing "change".
As an aside, the Frank Zappa quote that "government is the entertainment division of the
military industrial complex" remains potently poignant.
Calling what the US is doing to these countries "war" is like saying that Floyd was in a
fight with the cop's knee.
Yes,there has been some very measured retaliation from some of the victims, but it amounts to
Floyd saying he can't breathe.
@450 132
The provocations and responses of the formation of a war with Iran have been very interesting
and I think that if Iran hadn't of shot down the Ukrainian airliner after their attack
against the American base we may have already or continue to witness that war. As I see it
there was a real hard on to go after Iran but word of the shoot down allowed the Don to pull
back and let Iran suffer the black mark without escalation.
There are way too many itchy trigger fingers and pretexts for this and that can be easily
engineered and sold to the masses. Helps Biden or whomever if he can blame the future cluster
fuck on cleaning up donnies mess. I expect something expectedly unexpected in the coming
months.
War is not a static proposition and its meaning and definition can and should change over
time to fit the prevailing military strategies and economic paradigm of the day. We don't
live and operate in an unassailable lexicon vacuum. War is not defined tautologically,
meaning, war is not war. War is many things and can be fought on many dimensional fronts,
meaning not just militarily.
I think war is a state of mind. That's why we talk about "the war on poverty" or a
"propaganda war".
You might say that there is a "Cold War" but the number of acts of war is too numerous for
that and targeted at multiple countries/peoples. It's more like a 'hybrid war' on everyone
that opposes the New World Order that the AZ Empire seeks to impose on the planet.
Importantly, you can't prevent war if you only start thinking of it as 'war' when the
shooting starts.
There is no reason for US elite act as is being suggested, because the cake they get the
lion's share of is growing and so even though inequality is growing, the economy is too and
the common people are getting slightly better off.
If a country were in the hands of a tiny minority and they were to act in such a way and
try steal all the wealth for themselves, then they would be overthrown by domestic enemies
like Somoza was.
Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and
colonization was in fact the true "state of nature." He concluded that 1) "maximizing
political and personal security was the overwhelming driving force in human social and
cultural evolution," and 2) "warfare has been the most important single force shaping the
evolution of political society in our species."
Everything in the last five years is a symptom of the US reacting to being bested by
China.
I happen to think states that are even slightly nation-states have emergent qualities,
like a nest of social insects that react as though there is central direction though none
exists, and no state is closer to being alive than a democracy.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. February 26, 2015 The
Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
Because they seem to creep around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as respected members of the MSM
Notable quotes:
"... I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure, all in one. ..."
"... Now that I think of it, " the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is "Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a little twee. ..."
"... "The Slime" also seems to fit quite nicely. ..."
Um irony work not well on screen, methinks and not for the first (or last) time
But as to "intelligence community" pejorative, I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works
quite well. Mind you, this is for those who have "proven" themselves by persisting and upping
the ante of loathesomeness; I certainly do not mean to include people-in-process who
sometimes exit Big Brother's nether fissure to emerge as woken humans.
I'm thinking specifically and especially of John Kiriakou, for whom I had the honor of
extending jail support during the time he was incarcerated for "outing" a CIA torturer (who,
needless to say, received not even a tap on the wrist).
Keep it simple, pithy, homely, and familiar: I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable
moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure,
all in one.
> I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works quite well.
Now that I think of it, "
the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is
"Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a
little twee.
Re. preferred pejorative, I lean toward "IC creep" myself. Because they seem to creep
around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the
power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as
respected members of the MSM.
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please
excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting
for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive
politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they
introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or
improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed,
imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources
that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are
instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of
the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and
the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and
accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous
type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind
of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted,
politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the
hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political
party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting
role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy
and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the
tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature
of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the
eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the
advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm
and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was
attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for
ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics
became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by
pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans,
succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he
resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained
and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought
not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no
business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by
restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it
coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just
because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like
victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress
people who have no power.
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate
educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're
assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they
wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to
Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and
one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father
certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making
positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone
should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who
hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin
Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are
America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in
Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it
alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it
to death and found it to be a loser.
"... Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest. ..."
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of
the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a
multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in
history that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment
of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain
qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of
local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were
addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America",
Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer –
to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the
concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such
conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
As a general rule, extreme economic decline is almost always followed by extreme
international conflict. Sometimes, these disasters can be attributed to the human survival
imperative and the desire to accumulate resources during crisis. But most often, war amid
fiscal distress is usually a means for the political and financial elite to distract the masses
away from their empty wallets and empty stomachs.
War galvanizes societies, usually under false pretenses . I'm not talking about superficial
"police actions" or absurd crusades to "spread democracy" to Third World enclaves that don't
want it. No, I'm talking about REAL war: war that threatens the fabric of a culture, war that
tumbles violently across people's doorsteps. The reality of near-total annihilation is what
oligarchs use to avoid blame for economic distress while molding nations and populations.
Because of the very predictable correlation between financial catastrophe and military
conflagration, it makes quite a bit of sense for Americans today to be concerned. Never before
in history has our country been so close to full-spectrum economic collapse, the kind that
kills currencies and simultaneously plunges hundreds of millions of people into poverty. It is
a collapse that has progressed thanks to the deliberate efforts of international financiers and
central banks. It only follows that the mind-boggling scale of the situation would "require" a
grand distraction to match.
It is difficult to predict what form this distraction will take and where it will begin,
primarily because the elites have so many options. The Mideast is certainly an ever-looming
possibility. Iran is a viable catalyst. Syria is not entirely off the table. Saudi Arabia and
Israel are now essentially working together, forming a strange alliance that could promise
considerable turmoil -- even without the aid of the United States. Plenty of Americans still
fear the Al Qaeda bogeyman, and a terrorist attack is not hard to fabricate. However, when I
look at the shift of economic power and military deployment, the potential danger areas appear
to be growing not only in the dry deserts of Syria and Iran, but also in the politically
volatile waters of the East China Sea.
China is THE key to any outright implosion of the U.S. monetary system. Other countries,
like Saudi Arabia, may play a part; but ultimately it will be China that deals the decisive
blow against the dollar's world reserve status. China's dollar and Treasury bond holdings could
be used as a weapon to trigger a global sell-off of dollar-denominated assets. China has
stopped future increases of dollar forex holdings, and has cut the use of the dollar in
bilateral trade agreements with multiple countries. Oil-producing nations are shifting
alliances to China because it is now the world's largest consumer of petroleum. And, China has
clearly been preparing for this eventuality for years. So, given these circumstances, how can
the U.S. government conceive of confrontation with the East? Challenging one's creditors to a
duel does not usually end well. At the very least, it would be economic suicide. But perhaps
that is the point. Perhaps America is meant to make this seemingly idiotic leap.
Here are just some of the signs of a buildup to conflict...
Currency Wars And Shooting Wars
In March 2009, U.S. military and intelligence officials gathered to participate in a
simulated war game , a hypothetical economic struggle between the United States and
China.
The conclusions of the war game were ominous. The participants determined that there was no
way for the United States to win in an economic battle with China. The Chinese had a
counterstrategy to every U.S. effort and an ace up their sleeve – namely, their U.S.
dollar reserves, which they could use as a monetary neutron bomb, a chain reaction that would
result in the abandonment of the dollar by exporters around the world . They also found that
China has been quietly accumulating hard assets (including land and gold) across globe, using
sovereign wealth funds, government-controlled front companies, and private equity funds to make
the purchases. China could use these tangible assets as a hedge to protect against the eventual
devaluation of its U.S. dollar and Treasury holdings, meaning the losses on its remaining U.S.
financial investments was acceptable should it decide to crush the dollar.
The natural response of those skeptical of the war game and its findings is to claim that
the American military would be the ultimate trump card and probable response to a Chinese
economic threat. Of course, China's relationship with Russia suggests a possible alliance
against such an action and would definitely negate the use of nuclear weapons (unless the
elites plan nuclear Armageddon). That said, it is highly likely that the U.S. government would
respond with military action to a Chinese dollar dump, not unlike Germany's rise to
militarization and totalitarianism after the hyperinflationary implosion of the mark. The idea
that anyone except the internationalists could "win" such a venture, though, is foolish.
I would suggest that this may actually be the plan of globalists in the United States and
their counterparts in Asia and Europe. China's rise to financial prominence is not due to its
economic prowess. In fact, China is ripe with poor fiscal judgment calls and infrastructure
projects that have gone nowhere. But what China does have on its side are massive capital
inflows from global banks and corporations, mainly based in the United States and the European
Union. And, it has help in the spread of its currency (the Yuan) from entities like JPMorgan
Chase and Co. The International Monetary Fund is seeking to include China in its global basket
currency, the SDR, which would give China even more leverage to use in breaking the dollar's
reserve status. Corporate financiers and central bankers have made it more
than possible for China to kill the dollar , which they openly suggest is a "good thing."
Is it possible that the war game scenarios carried out by the Pentagon and elitist
think-tanks like the RAND Corporation were not meant to prevent a war with China, but to ensure
one takes place?
The Senkaku Islands
Every terrible war has a trigger point, an event that history books later claim "started it
all." For the Spanish-American War, it was the bombing of the USS Maine. For World War I it was
the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. For U.S. involvement in World War I,
it was the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-Boat. For U.S. involvement in World War II,
it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. For Vietnam, it was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (I recommend
readers look into the hidden history behind all of these events). While the initial outbreak of
war always appears to be spontaneous, the reality is that most wars are planned far in
advance.
As evidence indicates, China has been deliberately positioned to levy an economic blow
against the United States. Our government is fully aware what the results of that attack will
be, considering they have gamed the scenario multiple times. And, by RAND Corporation's own
admission, China and the United States have been preparing for physical confrontation for some
time, centered on the concept of pre-emptive strikes
. Meaning, the response both sides have exclusively trained for in the event of confrontation
is to attack the other first!
The seemingly simple and petty dispute over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea
actually provides a perfect environment for the pre-emptive powder keg to explode.
China has recently declared an "air defense zone" that extends over the islands, which Japan
has already claimed as its own. China, South Korea and the United States have all moved to defy
this defense zone. South Korea has even extended its own air defense zone to
overlap China's .
China has responded with warnings that its military aircraft will now monitor the region and
demands that other nations provide it with civilian airline flight paths. China has also stated
that it plans to
create MORE arbitrary defense zones in the near future.
The U.S. government under Barack Obama has long planned a military shift into the Pacific,
which is meant specifically to counter China's increased presence. It's almost as if the White
House knew a confrontation was coming .
China, with its limited navy, has focused more of its energy and funding into advanced
missile technologies -- including "ship killers," which fly too low and fast to be detected
with current radar. This is the same strategy of cheap compact precision warfare being adopted
by countries like Syria and Iran, and it is designed specifically to disrupt tradition American
military tactics.
Currently, very little diplomatic headway has been made or attempted in regards to the
Senkaku Islands. The culmination of various ingredients so far makes for a sour stew.
All that is required now is that one trigger event -- that one ironic "twist of fate" that
mainstream historians love so much, the spark that lights the fuse. China could suddenly sell a
mass quantity of U.S. Treasuries, perhaps in response to the renewed debt debate next spring.
The United States could use pre-emption to take down a Chinese military plane or submarine. A
random missile could destroy a passenger airliner traveling through the defense zone, and both
sides could blame each other. The point is nothing good could come from the escalation over
Senkaku.
Why Is War Useful?
What could possibly be gained by fomenting a war between the United States and China? What
could possibly be gained by throwing America's economy, the supposed "goose that lays the
golden eggs", to the fiscal wolves? As stated earlier, distraction is paramount, and fear is
valuable political and social capital.
Global financiers created the circumstances that have led to America's probable economic
demise, but they don't want to be blamed for it. War provides the perfect cover for monetary
collapse, and a war with China might become the cover to end all covers. The resulting fiscal
damage and the terror Americans would face could be overwhelming. Activists who question the
legitimacy of the U.S. government and its actions, once considered champions of free speech,
could easily be labeled "treasonous" during wartime by authorities and the frightened masses.
(If the government is willing to use the Internal Revenue Service against us today, just think
about who it will send after us during the chaos of a losing war tomorrow.) A lockdown of civil
liberties could be instituted behind the fog of this national panic.
Primarily, war tends to influence the masses to agree to more centralization, to relinquish
their rights in the name of the "greater good", and to accept less transparency in government
and more power in the hands of fewer people. Most important, though, is war's usefulness as a
philosophical manipulation after the dust has settled.
After nearly every war of the 20 th and 21 st century, the subsequent
propaganda implies one message in particular: National sovereignty, or nationalism, is the
cause of all our problems. The establishment then claims that there is only one solution that
will solve these problems: globalization.
This article by Andrew Hunter , the chairman of the Australian Fabian Society, is exactly
the kind of narrative I expect to hear if conflict arises between the United States and
China.
National identity and sovereignty are the scapegoats, and the Fabians (globalist
propagandists) are quick to point a finger. Their assertion is that nation states should no
longer exist, borders should be erased and a one-world economic system and government should be
founded. Only then will war and financial strife end. Who will be in charge of this
interdependent one world utopia? I'll give you three guesses...
The Fabians, of course, make no mention of global bankers and their instigation of nearly
every war and depression for the past 100 years; and these are invariably the same people that
will end up in positions of authority if globalization comes to fruition. What the majority of
people do not yet understand is that globalists have no loyalties to any particular country,
and they are perfectly willing to sacrifice governments, economies, even entire cultures, in
the pursuit of their "ideal society". "Order out of chaos" is their motto, after all. The
bottom line is that a war between China and the United States will not be caused by national
sovereignty. Rather, it will be caused by elitists looking for a way to END national
sovereignty. That's why such a hypothetical conflict, a conflict that has been gamed by think
tanks for years, is likely to be forced into reality.
Part 1: The Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood at Home
Introduction
Under a misguided illusion that Islamists can be regarded as moderates worthy of partnership
with democracies and other civilized states in the war against jihadism, the Barack Obama
administration has undertaken a series high-stakes, ideologically-driven and naive policy
gambits driven by the U.S. president's dangerous sympathy for Islam. In and of itself such a
sympathy is not necessarily a problem if it is moderate and indirectly influences a few,
non-strategic policies. However, when it becomes the ideological foundation for U.S. foreign
policy and strategy across the Muslim world, it is downright dangerous and a potentially
catastrophic miscalculation. The upshot of Obama's miscalculation has been the simultaneous
destabilization of whole regions of the world, the weakening of key allies, the alienation of
potential ones, and the possibility that for the first time since World War Two the West and
Eurasia will be riven by violence, terrorism and war.
The catastrophic failure of Obama's pro-Islamic foreign policy is shaping the perceptions
and calculus of friends, enemies, foes, and 'frenemies' alike. For great powers, his policies
offer risks and opportunities but, more importantly, they demand a complete re-thinking of what
U.S. foreign policy goals are and a rapid policy response to the picture that comes out of such
re-thinking. This has become especially true when it comes to the single great power the
expanse of which stretches along the most of the Muslim world's northern periphery –
Russia. Therefore, Moscow is in the grips of a major revamping and reinvigoration of its
foreign policy activity along its southern periphery. In each case the need to do so can be
reasonably argue to have been necessitated by American mistakes and failures–from South
and Central Asia in the east to North Africa in the west.
Here I will focus on the most recent cases of the Arab Spring and demonstrate that the Obama
administration has attempted to make alliances with Islamists as a buffer against global
jihadism and a battering ram for destroying secular authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world
despised by many liberals and the left, despite their use as a bulwark against radical
political Islam. In three key cases of the so-called Arab Spring–Egypt, Libya, and
Syria–the Obama administration has supported the radical global Islamist organization,
the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The Egyptian case is well-known and will not be discussed
here.
The pro-MB policy has been a fundamental miscalculation for several reasons. First, it
assumed that democratic, moderately Islamic states led by the MB would follow secular
authoritarian regimes. Instead, as the short-lived MB regime in Egypt demonstrated, an Islamist
MB regime is no better and likely much worse than secular, even military-led regimes. The rise
of Islamist authoritarianism after the fall of secular regimes is even better demonstrated by
the upper hand that jihadist totalitarian groups have in the chaos of post-secular regimes
across those parts of the Muslim world thrown into chaos with the help of U.S. policy.
Second, it assumed an impermeable line between the global Islamist revolutionary movement,
led by groups such as the MB and Hizb ut-Tahrir Islami (HTI), and the global jihadi
revolutionary movement, led by the Islamic State or IS (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) and Al Qa`ida (AQ).
The former type of group is often a half-way house for radicalized Muslims heading towards the
path of jihad. Like their jihadi counterparts, the MB and other radical Islamist revolutionary
groups favor a global caliphate based on the rule of Shariah law. The difference lies in the
strategies and tactics for getting there. By backing the MB, the U.S. facilitated jihadi
agitation and propaganda, recruiting, and arms acquisition fueling the global jihadi
revolutionary movement.
Part 1: The Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood at Home
There is a logic President Obama's policy bias in favor of the MB. President Obama's
biographical and radical leftist background lends him a great pro-Muslim feeling that often
attains absurd proportions. After all, he spent many of his most formative childhood years in
Indonesia, went to a madrassah school there, and stated in his autobiography that the most
beautiful sound he ever heard is the Islamic azan or call to prayer. The president
apparently believes that Islam and Muslims have been an instrumental part of America since its
founding. In his 2009 Cairo speech, which the administration claimed sparked the MB-led
Egyptian revolution that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in September 2012, President Obama claimed to
"know" that "Islam has always been a part of America's story"
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09). In a 2010
speech marking the end of Ramadan, Obama asserted: "Islam has always been part of America"
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/11/statement-president-occasion-ramadan). In
February 2015 he stated: "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its
founding" (
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-islam-has-been-woven-fabric-our-country-its-founding
). In short, President Obama has a bias in favor of Islam–indeed, a hyper-empathy that
goes over the line into fantasy. Given these realities, it might be expected that this
sentiment would be reflected in the American President's foreign policy. In fact, it is.
There is now a boat load of evidence that the Obama administration has brought in officials
and advisors from radical Muslim circles–in particular those from groups fronting for, or
tied to the MB–who espouse Islamist, anti-semitic, and anti-American points of view
similar to those MB proposes. Until Hillary Clinton's resignation as US Secretary of State, MB
links connected two high-ranking Obama administration officials: Clinton's chief of staff Huma
Abedin and current special assistant to the National Security Council Chief of Staff for the
military's Islamic chaplain program Mehdi K. Alhassani. The specific link is the Muslim World
League (MWL), indicted for financing Al Qa`ida (AQ) front groups. MWL successor groups have
been officially designated terrorist organizations by both the State Department and the United
Nations (Aaron Klein, "White House aide linked to al-Qaida funder," Counter Jihad Report
, 9 May 2014, http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/mehdi-k-alhassani/
).
A link between these two and MB is the Muslim Student Association (MSA) with branches in
hundreds of universities across America. The nationwide umbrella organization MSA has extensive
proven ties to the MB ("The Muslim Students Association and and the Jihadi Network," Terrorism
Awareness Project, 2008 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf
). The MSA's official anthem restates MB's credo:
Huma worked with Abdullah Omar Naseef on the editorial board of her father's Saudi-financed
think tank, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). Huma was there from 2002-2008,
and Naseef was there from December 2002 – December 2003. Naseef left the JMMA editorial
board at a time when various charities led by Naseef's MWL were declared illegal terrorism
fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N. Naseef is still the MWL's secretary-general.
Huma's mother, Saleha, is the editor of the IMMA's Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA),
the publication of Syed's institute (
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/03/distribution-list-smoking-gun-benghazi-email-included-muslim-brotherhood-agent/
). Its latest issue (Vol. 35, Issue 4, 2015) features the lead article "Muslims in Western
Media: New Zealand Newspapers' Construction of 2006 Terror Plot at Heathrow Airport and
Beyond," a study of alleged Islamophobia, in which the institute specializes ( www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjmm20/current ).
Saleha Abedin is also a MWL representative.
The MWL and its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization
(IIRO) and Al Haramain, have been accused of having terrorist ties. Al Haramain was declared a
terror-financing front organization by the U.S. and U.N. with direct ties to Osama bin Laden
and banned both in the U.S. and worldwide. The Anti-Defamation League accuses the MWL of
proselytizing a "fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large
network of charities and affiliated organizations" and notes that "several of its affiliated
groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity." In 2003, U.S. News and
World Report documented "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature" accompanied MWL's donations (
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/03/distribution-list-smoking-gun-benghazi-email-included-muslim-brotherhood-agent/
).
Both Abedin and Alhassani were links in the Obama's administration's strategic
communications (propaganda) operation to pin the 11 September 2012 Bengazi attack that killed
the US ambassador to Libya and three CIA operatives on an Internet film instead of an AQ
affiliate's attack. In an email obtained under a Judicial Watch lawsuit sent to Alhassani and
other officials from Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser for strategic
communication sent an email to Alhassani and several other administration officials three days
after the three days after the Benghazi attack indicating the need to "underscore that these
protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." Another email
indicates that US Ambassador to the UN Susana Rice was prepped on the Saturday before her
Sunday tour of talk shows where she repeated the video story and other elements cantained in
the email's talking points (See p. 14 of the PDF of several documents at, http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
).
An Egyptian newspaper claimed in December 2012 that six Muslims in particular have direct
ties to the MB or are even MB members. Four are adiminstration officials or semi-officials, and
three of these deserve scrutiny: assistant secretary for policy development at the Homeland
Security Department (HSD) Arif Alikhan; HSD Advisory Council member Mohammed Elibiary; and U.S.
special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference Rashad Hussain ( www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews
and Ahmed Shawki, "A man and 6 of the Brotherhood in the White House!," Rose El-Youssef, 22
December 2012,
www.rosa-magazine.com/News/3444/%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%84%D9%886-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B6
). To be sure, the Egyptian article appears to be overstated in claiming these persons' MB
membership. The piece was likely part of a strategic communications operation carried out by
opponents of the MB regime that overthrew Mubarak and backed the post-MB Egyptian government of
General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi counter-revolution. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's
appointment of these officials or plenipotentiaries as well as several other Muslim-American
leaders -- in particular, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) president Imam Mohamed Magid
and and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) co-founder Salam al-Marayati -- is disturbing
given their indirect MB associations and MB-like Islamist political and theological views.
The biggest knock against DHS assistant secretary for policy development Arif Alikhan has
been the endorsement by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of his appointment.
CAIR has defended terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as liberation movements.
It also was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorism funding case, and several of
its former officials have been convicted of terrorism-related charges. A lesser rap is that
Alikhan attended a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) just days before his
appointment. MPAC has a similar history of defending Hamas (
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/new-dhs-official-linked-to-muslim-public-affairs-council-which-calls-hizballah-a-liberation-movement
). The Egyptian publication claimed that Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization
(WIO), which it characterizes as a Brotherhood "subsidiary" ( www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates#
). These indictments of Alikhan seem less than convincing as evidence of MB ties.
The funding for Elibiary's own community organizing activity has been shrouded in secrecy.
He is co-founder, president and CEO of the Freedom and Justice Foundation (FJF), founded in
November 2002 "to promote government relations and "interfaith community relations for the
organized Texas Muslim community." The IRS revoked the FJF's nonprofit status in May 2010 for
failure to file the requisite forms that would have revealed its source of funding. Moreover,
his FJF has never filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report. He also has ties to
CAIR. The North Texas Islamic Council (NTIC) or Texas Islamic Council (TIC) is a FJF affiliate,
and Elibiary is a registered NTIV agent for the NTIC. One of the NTIC's directors is H.
Mustafaa Carroll, who is the executive director of CAIR's Houston chapter. Elibiary has
described the writings of Qutb, the chief ideologist of the MB and a major source for global
Islamist and jihadist revolutionaries alike, as having ""the potential for a strong spiritual
rebirth that's truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and
motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more" ( www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/712.pdf
).
According to an investigation by the Washington Free Beacon, Elibiary was at the center of a
scandal involving the "inappropriate disclosure of sensitive law enforcement documents"
resulting from his access to DHS's secure HS-SLIC system, according to a DHS letter. The case
has been "shrouded in mystery, with various officials providing unclear and at times
contradictory answers about whether DHS ever properly investigated." The allegation was that
Elibiary "inappropriately accessed classified documents from a secure site and may have
attempted to pass them to reporters." As part of his role on the HSAC, Elibiary "was provided
access to a network containing sensitive but unclassified information," according to the July
2014 DHS letter U.S. congressman Louis Gohmert (Republican from Texas). DHS claimed that its
2011 investigation "found no credible information" that Elibiary "disclosed or sought to
disclose 'For Official Use Only' information to members of the media." Nor did DHS "find any
indication that he sought to disclose any other internal OHS [Office of Homeland Security]
information to anyone apart from official use of information within the scope of his role for
the Homeland Security Advisory Council," according to the letter states.
However, DHS's denials are contradicted by documents obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act by Judicial Watch, which indicate that there was never a proper investigation
into Elibiary's actions. In a September 2013 letter DHS informed Judicial Watch in fact that it
could not find investigation records connected to the matter. This conflicting information
suggests a cover up of the fact that there was no investigation, as congressman Gohmert notes,
and that Elibiary was let go from the HSAC to lock in the cover up. Terrorism expert Patrick
Poole concluded that any DHS investigation that might have occurred was "phony," since it
failed to contact him and his source, which led to the first public allegations of Elibiary's
misuse of documents. "(W)hen DHS couldn't provide a single email or document in response to the
Judicial Watch FOIA to prove this investigation ever took place, the jig was up," Poole noted (
http://freebeacon.com/issues/controversial-dhs-adviser-let-go-amid-allegations-of-cover-up/
; see also www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mohamed-elibiary-homeland-security/
).
President Obama's originally appointed Rashad Hussain as his special envoy to the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2015 Hussain was promoted to the
position of director of the U.S. State Department's Center for Strategic Counterterrorism
Communications
(www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/02/26/obama-appoints-muslim-brotherhood-linked-muslim-to-head-center-for-strategic-counterterrorism-communications/).
Hussain previously served on Critical Islamic Reflections program organizing committee with the
founder of Zaytuna College, Imam Zaid Shakir ( http://www.yale.edu/cir/2004/about.html ).
Shakir's co-founder is Hamza Yusuf, who has said that jihadist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman,
convicted in the Al Qa`ida conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks in the 1990s, was tried
unjustly ( www.investigativeproject.org/2778/ipt-profiles-hamza-yusuf
).
Speaking at a MSA conference in 2004 Hussain condemned the U.S. Justice Department for
"politically motivated persecutions" in prosecuting the soon-to-be convicted terrorism
supporter Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida computer engineering professor. He also
called the legal process "sad commentary on our legal system," "a travesty of justice," and
"atrocious"
(www.politico.com/story/2010/02/islam-envoy-retreats-on-terror-talk-033210#ixzz0g5R9A5gl). One
wonders what legal system Hussain would prefer to the American system of justice. In 2006 the
good professor pleaded guilty to one count of "(c)onspiracy to make or receive contributions of
funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian jihadist organization,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a U.S. State Department 'Specially Designated Terrorist
organization'" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison
(www.investigativeproject.org/profile/100/sami-al-arian). The judge in the case said there was
evidence that Al-Arian served on PIJ's governing board. Al-Arian successfully had lied about
his ties to the terrorist group for ten years. For his part, Hussain lied in 2006 about the
fact that he made the noted 2004 remarks condemning the Justice Department for 'persecutions',
only to be forced to admit he had lied after being subjected to media scrutiny in the wake of
his appointment. (www.investigativeproject.org/1809/how-are-these-not-considered-lies).
According to the watchdog group Global Mulsim Brotherhood Watch, Hussain has a long record of
attending MB-tied conferences, including a May 2009 conference organized by MB-tied groups like
the MSA
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2010/02/20/breaking-news-rashad-hussain-admits-making-controversial-comments-and-asking-for-deletion/).
In addition such to appointments, Obama administration grant-giving has rewarded radical
Muslims, including open anti-Semites. Director of the Michigan branch of MB front group CAIR,
Dawud Walid, has traveled abroad at least twice on U.S State Department funds, using a 2010
trip to Mali to criticize America's treatment of Muslims after 9/11. But it gets worse. In a 25
May 2012 sermon at the Islamic Organization of North America mosque in Warren, Michigan, Walid
asked rhetorically: "Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah?" Walid answered: "They are
the Jews, they are the Jews." He also has stated: "One of the greatest social ills facing
American today is Islamophobia, and anti-Muslim bigotry. And if you trace the organizations and
the main advocates and activists in Islamophobia in America, you will see that all those
organizations are pro-Israeli occupation organizations and activists." Walid's anti-American
bias is reflected in his view that the 2009 shooting death of a Detroit imam was unjust,
despite the imam's refusal of police orders to lay down his weapon and surrender and his fire
at police first ( www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews
).
Obama's ties to Muslims with anti-American and radical leanings predate his election to the
presidency. The Obama campaign's Muslim outreach adviser Mazen Asbahi was forced to resign in
August 2008 after Wall Street Journal article unmasked his indirect radical and MB ties. In
2000, Asbahi served on the board of the Islamic investment fund Allied Assets Advisors Fund
(AAAF), a Delaware-registered trust. Asbahi also has been a frequent speaker before several
U.S.-based groups that scholars associate with the MB. AAAF is a subsidiary of the North
American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which receives funding from the government of Saudi Arabia and
holds the title to many U.S. mosques in the U.S. NAIT promotes fundamentalist Islam compatible
with both the ideology of MB and Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. Other AAAF board members at the time
included one Jamal Sayid, the imam at a fundamentalist mosque in Illinois the Bridgeview Mosque
in Bridgeview, Ill., outside Chicago. Sayid served on the AAAF board until 2005. The Justice
Department designated the imam an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2007 racketeering trial of
several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. Sayid has been identified as a
leading Hamas member in numerous news reports since 1993.
(www.wsj.com/articles/SB121797906741214995 and
http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/06/breaking-news-obama-advisor-resigns-after-wall-street-journal-report/
). Asbahi reportedly has connections to two other MB-linked organizations, the Institute For
Social Policy And Understanding and SA Consulting. One of the latter's three managers is Omer
Totonji, the apparent son of Iraqi-born U.S. Muslim Brotherhood founder Ahmed Totonji
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/01/breaking-news-obama-top-muslim-adviser-part-of-two-more-organizations-tied-to-us-muslim-brotherhood/).
The White House's 'go to' imam is Mahomed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), to which Asbahi also has ties
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/01/breaking-news-obama-top-muslim-adviser-part-of-two-more-organizations-tied-to-us-muslim-brotherhood/).
Although Magid has been involved in outreach to Jews at the US Holocaust Museum and the gay
community, he has also awarded an American Muslim who has verbally attacked Jews on an Islamist
ideo-theological basis. Magid is often invited to attend administration speeches on US Middle
East policy at the State Department, has advised the FBI and the Justice Department to
criminalize defamation of Islam, and is a member of the Department of Homeland Security's
Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He also advises other federal agencies. In 2012
Magid's ISNA organized a "Diversity Forum" at which Magid gave a diversity award to CAIR
Michigan branch director Dawud Walid, just weeks after Walid's sermon at the Islamic
Organization of America (IOA) mosque in Warren, Michigan, in which he claimed Jews had incurred
the wrath of Allah (www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews and
https://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-shariah-czar-mohamed-magid-hands-diversity-award-to-jew-hater-dawud-walid
).
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) co-founder and director Salam al-Marayati is a frequent
White House visitor and administration consultant
(www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations.php). Marayati has said that Israel should have
been added to the "suspect list" for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks ( http://theblacksphere.net/2013/04/devout-muslims-in-key-positions-in-the-white-house/
). MPAC has stated Muslims should be "confronting a nation of cowards," speaking of the United
States in the words of former U.S. Attorney General (
www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/ferguson-confronting-a-nation-of-cowards.php ).
Marayati's MPAC spokeswoman in 2007, one Edina Lekovic, was editor of Al-Talib: The Muslim
News Magazine at UCLA , for its July 1999 issue which praised Osama bin Laden as a
"glorious mujahed" and in 2007 lied on national television about it, for which she was later
fully exposed by Investigative Project director Stephen Emerson
(www.investigativeproject.org/293/ms-lekovica-dozen-printing-mistakes). By the early 2000s, if
not much during Ms Lekovic's years at UCLA, the UCLA MSA was engaged in Islamist and
anti-Semitic propaganda and agitation, including support for the publication
(www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf). CAIR was
affiliated with the university paper, with its southern California chapter's director sitting
on Al-Talib 's editorial board
(www.investigativeproject.org/271/mpac-cair-and-praising-osama-bin-laden). The UCLA MSA was
also intimately involved with the newspaper's publishing and protest activity attacking Jews
(www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf and www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/06/cairs-legal-tribulations
).
Given all of the above, it is certainly not unreasonable to suspect that President Obama's
Cairo speech was intended to lend support to the world's most powerful MB branch -- that in
Egypt. The Obama administration's warm support for Egypt's MB-led revolution and short-lived
regime and cold shoulder to Gen. Sisi's government is well-known and speaks for itself.
Part 2: The Obama Administration and the MB Abroad
Abroad, President Obama's sympathy for semi-Islamist, MB-like elements at home was soon
reflected in his foreign policy. In 2011 Obama issued a secret directive called Presidential
Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, which, according to the Washington Times, outlined a strategy
for backing the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East as a strategy for supporting reform
and blocking jihadism's advances in the region (
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/inside-the-ring-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/
).
It appears to have been the foundation of the Obama administration's overall strategy in the
Middle East and North Africa and the war against jihadism. It would be evident in the
administration's policy failures in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Those failures would
influence U.S. relations with allies and competitors, especially the other major powers in the
region – Russia and Turkey – putting them on a collision course as they attempted a
region in free-fall collapse as a result, for the most part, of American policies.
Egypt
The Obama administration first encouraged the MB-led overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's secular
Arab nationalist regime in Egypt, and then openly supported the new MB 'democracy.' Thus, the
U.S. was backing the overthrow of the leader who had repressed the MB in the wake of the
assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in October 1981, in which the some MB members
were involved but not the main actors. Thus, President Obama invited MB leader and new Egyptian
President Mohamed Morsi to the White House, a strong endorsement from any U.S. president. After
President Obama's November 2012 meeting with the MB's now Egyptian President Morsi, Obama told
his aides that he "sensed an engineer's precision with surprisingly little ideology"
(www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obama-forge-link-in-gaza-deal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&src=un&feedurl=http:/json8.nytimes.com/pages/world/middleeast/index.jsonp&pagewanted=all&).
This was at a time when the Israeli incursion in Gaza was at its peak and Egyptian MB officials
were issuing the most harsh and sometimes jihadist and racist statements in relation to Israel
and Jews. Just days before Obama met with Morsi, the latter declared in Cairo's Al-Azhar
mosque: "The leaders of Egypt are enraged and are moving to prevent the aggression on the
people of Palestine in Gaza. We in Egypt stand with Gaza," he said. "[W]e are with them in one
trench, that he who hits them, hits us; that this blood which flows from their children, it, it
is like the blood flowing from the bodies of our children and our sons, may this never happen."
At the same time, the chairman of Morsi's Freedom and Justice Party, Saad Katatni was making
threats of jihad against Israel: "We are with you (Gaza) in your jihad. We have come here to
send a message from here to the Zionist entity, to the Zionist enemy. And we say to them, Egypt
is no longer. Egypt is no longer after the revolution a strategic treasure for you. Egypt was
and still is a strategic treasury for our brothers in Palestine; a strategic treasure for Gaza;
a strategic treasure for all the oppressed"
(www.investigativeproject.org/3827/obama-administration-oversells-morsi).
MB officials and its official website in fact issued a series of anti-Semitic and jihadi
calls. During one MB-organized protest at the time, preacher Muhammad Ragab called on Muslims
"to raise the banner of jihad against the tyrannical, invading and wicked sons of apes and pigs
[i.e., the Jews], and to unite against the enemies of Allah." MB website articles described
"Zionists" as "apes and pigs," "scum of the earth," "prophet murderers," or "infidels." For
example, MB General Guide Dr. Muhammad Badi issued various jihidist and anti-Semitic calls and
motifs, including a quote of the hadith of "the rocks and the trees" – a well-known
Islamic antisemitic motif–also found in Hamas's founding charter–according to which
the Muslims will fight and kill the Jews before the Day of Judgment. The MB also repeatedly
thanked God for the deaths of Israeli civilians during the killed by rockets
(www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6836.htm).
The Obama administration has never criticized the Egyptian MB or any other MB branch for
pro-Hamas and pro-jihad rhetoric whether from Morsi, Katatni, or their 'ikhwan' associates. In
addition, he nor any U.S. official ever threatened sanctions as the new MB regime allowed
Islamist elements to attack Coptic Christians, and he was reluctant to support the overthrow of
the MB regime and the return to power of the now military-backed Arab nationalist rule under
Gen. Sisi.
Indeed, when confronted by a journalist on the issue, then State Department spokeswoman and
architect of State's remarkably similarly failed Ukraine policy, Victoria Nuland responded:
"Well, I'm obviously not, from this podium, going to characterize the Egyptian view, nor am I
going to speak for them and characterize our private diplomatic conversations. We all agree on
the need to de-escalate this conflict, and the question is for everybody to use their influence
that they have to try to get there"
(www.investigativeproject.org/3827/obama-administration-oversells-morsi). This pro-MB policy
orientation was mirrored in the events in Libya and elsewhere that soon followed.
Libya
The administration then directly intervened to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi regime in
Libya–another country with a considerable MB presence–in violation of a UN
resolution limiting NATO action to establishing a no-fly zone backed by Russia by its
abstention in the UN Security Council vote. The overthrow of Qaddafi first led to minimal
change after elections and eventually anarchy and a civil war, which rages to this day. The
parliamentary elections of July 2012 saw National Transition Council president Mustafa Abdul
Jalil's party take the most votes, but Jalil represented limited change having been the
economic advisor of Qaddafi's son. The elections also provided an opening for the MB, which
finished in second place. But these elections failed in strengthening regime or consolidating
democracy, and the country soon melted down into civil war, with jihadi elements supplementing
the Islamist trend represented by the MB.
The Obama administration pattern of supporting MB and, unwittingly through it, jihadi
elements such as AQ first emerged in Libya in 2011. In the words of the Citizens' Commission on
Benghazi (CCB) -- founded in September 2013 and including among its members former US
Congressman Peter Hoekstra and numerous former CIA and military officers -- the Obama
administration "switched sides in the war on terrorism" ( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
). CCB member and former CIA officer Clare Lopez concludes that "the Qaddafi opposition was led
by the Muslim Brotherhood and the fighting militia was dominated by al-Qaida. That's who we
helped" ( http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/mustafa-abdul-jalil/
).
A December 2015 FOIA release of emails of then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show
that from the outset of protests in Libya the Obama administration was aware of AQ's presence
in the U.S. backed opposition and anti-Qaddafi rebels' war crimes and had sent special ops
trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of the protests, and concerned regarding oil access
for Western firms, Qaddafi's gold and silver reserves and his plans for a gold-backed currency
that might weaken Western currencies. Thus, Clinton's unofficial advisor and envoy to the
region, Sidney Blumenthal refers in one email to "an extremely sensitive source" who confirmed
that British, French, and Egyptian special ops forces were training the Libyan rebels along the
Egyptian-Libyan border and in Benghazi's suburbs within a month of the first ant-Qaddafi
protests which began in Benghazi in mid-February 2011. By March 27 what was repeatedly being
referred to as a popular revolt involved foreign agents "overseeing the transfer of weapons and
supplies to the rebels" of the National Libyan Council (NLC) opposition front, including "a
seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition." Blumenthal then notes that
"radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa'ida in the Islamic
Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command." Moreover, Blumenthal
reported to her that "one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily
execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting." The commander was using a
label–'foreign mercenaries'–used by opposition forces for the black Libyans favored
under his regime and apparently was not referring to the Western special forces training and
backing the rebels, whose atrocities of Libyan blacks were well-documented at the time by human
rights groups the U.S. government often cites. Furthermore, Blumenthal states that the stories
of Qaddafi's forces engaging in mass rape and his distributing Viagra to encourage them were
only rumors, and yet these rumors became a charge leveled officially by Clinton in a State
Department statement, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice at the UN itself, and numerous Western
officials and media. The claims were shown in July 2011 by Amnesty International to have been
very likely false and initiated by the rebels (
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
with links to original sources). The above-mentioned CCB investigation, based on interviews
with sources in U.S. intelligence agencies and the military, concludes that the U.S.
facilitated delivery of weapons and military support to Libyan rebels from the MB who were
linked to AQ, including the AQ cell that undertook the Bengazi consulate attack that killed
U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three CIA operatives.( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
).
A New York Times investigation confirms the interpretation supported by the recently
disclosed documents and CCB investigation. Secretary of State Clinton, whose ear Huma Abedin
had, provided the pivotal support convincing the president first to back a UN resolution on a
no-fly zone and disabling Qaddafi's command and control. Clinton also led the push inside the
administration to upgrade from that policy to one of pursuing a rebel victory and a strategy of
letting its allies supply weapons to the rebels and knowingly and willfully exceed the UN
resolution's legal writ. Almost immediately after the UN resolution's adoption and well before
Qadaffi was killed, the U.S. was providing assistance that went far beyond that necessary to
secure a no-fly zone. According to former CIA Director, General David Petraeus, the United
States was then already providing "a continuing supply of precision munitions, combat search
and, and surveillance." Throughout spring 2011, the Obama administration looked the other way
as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates supplied the rebels with lethal weapons, according to the
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others, and Clinton knew and was ostensibly "concerned that
Qatar, in particular, was sending arms only to militias from the city of Misurata and select
Islamist brigades." The State Department's Libya policy adviser Daniel Shapiro acknowledged to
the NYT that the goal no longer was enforcing a no-fly zone but "winning" and "winning quickly
enough," the latter goal perhaps connected with U.S. domestic politics and the presidential
election little more than a year away. US State Department's Policy Planning Director
Anne-Marie Slaughter confirmed in the NYT article that the U.S. "did not try to protect
civilians on Qaddafi's side" (Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary
Clinton's 'Soft Power' and a Dictator's Fall," New York Times , 27 February 2016,
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?emc=edit_th_20160228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=59962778&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report&_r=0).
Clinton was unusually interested–on "the activist side"–in having the U.S. take
part, if a clandestine part in the supply of weapons to "secular" Libyan rebels "to counter
Qatar" and the threat of lost influence. However, senior military officials, such as NATO's
supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis and Obama's national security adviser Tom
Donilon warned that there were signs, "flickers." of Al Qaeda within the opposition and the
administration would not be able to ensure that weapons would not fall into Islamist
extremists's hands. This was a 'flicker' of the tragedies in Benghazi and Syria yet to
come(Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary Clinton's 'Soft Power' and a
Dictator's Fall").
The CCB and the NYT also concluded that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had communicated to
the U.S. his willingness to resign and depart from Libya and that the U.S. facilitated the
delivery of arms to Libyan MB rebels tied to AQ in the person of its North African affiliate,
AQ in Maghreb or AQIM. Moreover, the investigation found that the U.S. ignored Libyan leader
Muammar Qaddafi's called for a truce and expressed a readiness to abdicate shortly after the
2011 Libyan revolt began but was ignored or rebuffed by U.S. officials leading to "extensive
loss of life (including four Americans), chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national
security objectives across the region" ( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
). There was another plan supported by State Department policy planning director Slaughter to
have Qaddafi step down in favor of one his sons, but this was also rejected by Clinton in favor
of supporting the rebels to victory and violating international law established by the UN
resolution (Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary Clinton's 'Soft Power'
and a Dictator's Fall").
The CCB's broader conclusions about the Islamist revolution in U.S. counter-jihadism policy
is backed up by revelations from other newly disclosed documents regarding the debacle in
Syria. The Obama administration's MB policy in Libya–which was already getting out of
control and would turn Libya into a failed state, a jihadi and in particular IS stronghold, and
a main source of Europe's refugee deluge–would be applied to Syria as well with even more
disastrous results. Documents show that the U.S. administration was well aware that no later
than October 2012 weapons of the formerly Qaddafi-led Lybian army were being sent from Libyan
MB and AQ rebels to the increasingly jhadist-dominated Syrian opposition.
Obama, the MB, and Jihadists in Syria
When the Syrian revolt began in Daraa on March 18, 2011, the Syrian MB only existed abroad,
having been exiled by Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father and predecessor. However, its support
abroad translated into strength in the original opposition alliance, the Syrian National
Council (Oct. 2, 2011-Nov. 11, 2012) or SNC, backed and 'weaponized,' literally speaking, by
the West, Turkey, and the Arabs. Turkey and Qatar sponsored the Syrian MB's strong
representation on the SNC, though traditionally different Syrian MB factions have had ties in
Saudi Arabia and Iraq as well and more radical Salafists were stronger at home in 2011-2013 in
contrast to the MB's dominance in Syria from 1979-1982
(www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/01/syria-muslim-brotherhood-past-present.html#). At a
conference hosted by Turkey in Istanbul in October 2011, the Syrian MB became a co-founder of
the SNC, which it came to dominate politically if not numerically ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
). Exiled Syrian MB members comprise a quarter of the SNC's 310 members, and the MB constitutes
the most cohesive, well-organized and influential bloc within the SNC. Moreover, another
Islamist group within the SNC, the 'Group of 74' consists of former MB members ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
; http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=48334
; and www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/more-divisions-among-syrian-opposition
).
The MB is far more clever and deceptive than some other Islamist and all jihadist groups. It
attempts to portray a moderate face and join alliances that function as fronts for its activity
and vehicles for its rise to power. Thus, the SNC platform professed the goal of creating a
full-fledged democracy, with full individual and groups rights and freedoms, elections, and the
separation of powers ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
). It also allowed more moderate SNC leaders to assume the mantle of leadership to present a
moderate face to foreign sponsors. This is openly acknowledged by MB leaders in the SNC. Former
Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali Sadr el-Din Bayanouni, the SNC's fourth most powerful leader,
stated that SNC Chairman Burhan Ghalioun was chosen because he "is accepted in the West and at
home and, to prevent the regime from capitalizing on the presence of an Islamist at the top of
the SNC" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk6KTU1zoTE
). In 2012 liberal members began resigning from the council precisely because they saw it
functioning as a liberal front for the MB ( http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200546.html
). One of the SNC's few secular members claimed in February 2012 that more than half of the
council consisted of Islamists ( http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-opposition-idUKTRE81G0VM20120217
).
The SNC joined the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces when the
coalition was founded in November 2012 but withdrew from it in January 2014 when the latter
agreed to enter into talks on a ceasefire and peaceful transition sponsored by the West and
Russia in Geneva. By then both the council and the coalition had been long overtaken by the
Al-Qa`ida-tied Jabhat al-Nusrah and other such groups as well as by the Islamic State (IS). The
National Council is also heavily influenced by the MB. Its first president (November 2012-April
2103), Moaz al-Khatib, was the former imam of the historical Sunni Umayyad Mosque, a converted
Christian church which houses the remains of St. John the Baptist and is situated in the heart
of old Damascus. One of his two vice presidents was Suheir Atassi, ostensibly a secularist, and
Khatib has at times promised equal rights for Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Christians and Kurds
alike, prompting optimism in the West at the time that he could be a strong counter to the
growing jihadization of the Free Syria Army (FSA). However, Katib is a MB sympathizer if not
clandestine operative, a declared follower of the MB's chief theologian Yusuf al-Qardawi, whom
he calls "our great imam." In accordance with Islamist taqqiya -- the right to lie to
non-Muslims in order to further the Islamic cause -- when communicating in Arabic, Katib's
statements become more radical. He has supported the establishment of a Shariah-law based
stated and his Darbuna.net website has included articles, including some of his own,
which express anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-Shia views ( http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/14/islamist-in-chief/
). Moreover, Katib has demonstrated just how much the differences between Islamist groups such
as the MB and jihadists groups like AQ and IS are differences over strategy and tactics, not
the goal of restoring the caliphate and globalizing radical Islamic influence if not rule. He
has also called on the U.S. to reconsider its 2012 decision to declare the AQ-allied Jabhat
al-Nusrah as a terrorist organization, refusing to denounce JN and emphasizing its value as an
ally in the struggle against the Assad regime
(www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/1212/For-newly-recognized-Syrian-rebel-coalition-a-first-dispute-with-US-video
and http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/assad-opposition-094/
).
It is important to remember that the dividing lines between secular and Islamist groups such
as the MB and even moreso those between Islamist groups like the MB and jihadi groups like AQ
and IS on the ground in Syria are fluid and porous. The events in Libya demonstrated the
dangers of these intersections, and now failed results would be repeated inside the Syria
opposition with support for 'moderates' and Islamists leading to support for jihadists.
Recently disclosed U.S. government documents reveal the extent to which -- already by at
least mid-2012 -- the Obama administration along with its European and Sunni allies were
supplying financial, weapons, and training support to the SNC in its efforts to overthrow the
Baathist and Alawite-led regime of Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, the documents show that the
weapons were not only going to the MB-dominated SNC but also to the Al Qa`ida (AQ) Iraqi
affiliate, the forerunner to ISIS. In fact, an August 2012 Defense Department/Defense
Information Agency (DIA) document, which would have been based on data from the preceding
months up to a year before mid-2012, emphasized that Salafists, in particular MB and AQ's
affiliate in Iraq 'Al Qaida in Iraq' or AQI already dominated the Syrian opposition forces. The
same document undermines the neo-con argument that if the U.S. had intervened in Syria early
on– say, in 2011 -- there would have been little opportunity for jihadi groups like AQI
and IS to dominate the forces fighting the Assad regime. But already in early 2012 if not
sooner, elements from AQ's group in the region, AQI, immediately moved from Iraq to back the
opposition in Syria, AQI already had been present in Syria for years as part of its operations
in Iraq. Moreover, its strongholds were in the eastern regions of Iraq, and the religious and
tribal leaders there came out strongly in support for the opposition to Syria's secular regime
(
www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
). Therefore, AQI would have had no trouble recruiting for the fight against Assad regardless
of Western actions. One needs only recall the already existing AQI presence and the open desert
terrain and porous border between western Iraq and eastern Syria.
One DoD/DIA document states that weapons were being sent from the port of Bengazi, Libya to
the ports of Banias and Borj Islam in Syria beginning from October 2011–that is, before
the SNC was even founded, meaning Western support actually began quite early on
(www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-1-3-2-3-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/). The
document is heavily redacted (blacked out) and does not indicate who organized the weapons
shipments. However, the detailed knowledge of the reasons why specific ports were selected and
specific ships used suggests that U.S. intelligence, likely the CIA, organized the shipments.
The document states: " The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic
transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able
to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo " ( www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-1-3-2-3-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/
). This shows that U.S. intelligence was already on the ground before October 2011. Moreover,
this demonstrates that early Western actions in the form of supplying weapons especially, only
strengthened AQI's recruitment and development potential both in Iraq and Syria, helping to
produce the Islamic State. I include extended excerpts from the most relevant newly released
documents at the end of this article. One document warned of "dire consequences," most of which
are blacked out, but one potential consequence is not redacted: the "renewing facilitation of
terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena" (
www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
).
The interpretation that the Obama administration intentionally or unintentionally aided and
abetted AQ and the rise of its successor organization ISIS (IS) is supported by the U.S.
administration's second-ranking official. On 2 October 2015 U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden
let the cat out of the big when he was asked the question–"In retrospect do you believe
the United States should have acted earlier in Syria, and if not why is now the right
moment?"– at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Biden
answered:
The answer is 'no' for 2 reasons. One, the idea of identifying a moderate middle has been
a chase America has been engaged in for a long time. We Americans think in every country in
transition there is a Thomas Jefferson hiding beside some rock – or a James Madison
beyond one sand dune. The fact of the matter is the ability to identify a moderate middle in
Syria was – there was no moderate middle because the moderate middle are made up of
shopkeepers, not soldiers – they are made up of people who in fact have ordinary elements
of the middle class of that country. And what happened was – and history will record this
because I'm finding that former administration officials, as soon as they leave write books
which I think is inappropriate, but anyway, (laughs) no I'm serious – I do think it's
inappropriate at least , you know, give the guy a chance to get out of office. And what my
constant cry was that our biggest problem is our allies – our allies in the region were
our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends – and I have the greatest
relationship with Erdogan, which I just spent a lot of time with – the Saudis, the
Emiratis, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially
have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and
tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the
people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis
coming from other parts of the world . Now you think I'm exaggerating – take a look.
Where did all of this go? So now what's happening? All of a sudden everybody's awakened because
this outfit called ISIL which was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out
of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, work with Al Nusra who we declared a
terrorist group early on and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them. So
what happened? Now all of a sudden – I don't want to be too facetious – but they
had seen the Lord. Now we have – the President's been able to put together a coalition of
our Sunni neighbors ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrXkm4FImvc&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m57s
).
This illegal activity is at least one if not the main reason behind the Obama
administration's deception of the American people regarding the murder of US ambassador to
Libya Christopher Stevens and three CIA agents in September 2012 in Benghazi. Indeed, the
above-mentioned document and other recently released DoD documents confirm that within hours of
the attack, the entire US government, including those who were at the forefront in claiming the
incident was a political demonstration that took place in reaction to a film denigrating
Islam–President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and US National
Security advisor (then US rep to the UN) Susan Rice–was in fact a carefully planned
terrorist attack carried out by an AQ affiliate in Libya and facilitated by the U.S.
president's favorite Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was also dominant
within the 'moderate' wing of the Syrian opposition and Free Syrian Army. Indeed, the recent
congressional hearings into the Benghazi terrorist attack demonstrated that within a day of the
attack Clinton told her daughter and the Egyptian ambassador to the US that it was a terrorist
attack carried out by a AQ affiliate as described in the document not by a 'demonstration'
protesting film as she told the American people and the relatives of the the CIA agents killed
in the attack.
At the same time, the military and intelligence communities are in virtual mutiny over the
Obama administration's failure to recognize the growing IS and overall jihadi threat and the
risk of growing that threat by continuing the failed MB and other policies the administration
pursues in the MENA region. The military's policy revolt underscores the fact and gravity of
the policy to supply weapons to Syria's MB- and eventually jihadist-infested 'moderate'
opposition to the Assad regime. In a January 2016 London Review of Books article, investigative
journalist Seymour M. Hersh uncovered major dissent and opposition within the Pentagon's Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) over Obama's policy of supplying weapons to MB elements in Syria. Hersh
found: "Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and
that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him" – has in recent
years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers
on the Pentagon's Joint Staff. Moreover, the Pentagon critics' opposition centered on the
administration's unwarranted "fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin." Another less
likely accurate aspect of their critique holds that "Obama is captive to Cold War thinking
about Russia and China, and hasn't adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries
share Washington's anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington,
they believe that Islamic State must be stopped" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
In my view, Obama is captive to anything but 'Cold War thinking.' Rather, he is willing
prisoner of his excessive sympathy for Islam, to his MB strategy, and to his perhaps/perhaps
not unconscious association of Putin with the dreaded Republican and conservative white male so
detested by the Democratic Party and American left from which the president hails. That
association has been unintentionally reinforced by Putin's attempt to wear the mantle of
defender of traditional values, Christianity and, as strange as it may seem to come, Western
civilization. However, Hersh's other findings are well-taken.
According to Hersh, the top brass's resistance began in summer of 2013–more than a
year since the CIA, the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began to ship guns and goods from Libya via
Turkey and sea to Syria for Assad's toppling. A joint JCS-DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
"highly classified," "all-source" intelligence estimate foresaw that the Assad regime's fall
would bring chaos and very possibly Syria's takeover by jihadists was occurring in much of
Libya. Hersh's source, a former JCS senior adviser, said the report "took a dim view of the
Obama administration's insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel
groups." The assessment designated Turkey a "major impediment" to the policy since Ankara had
"co-opted" the "covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad,"
which "had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of
the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State." Moderates had "evaporated" and
the Free Syrian Army was "a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey." The estimate
concluded, according to Hersh and his source, that "there was no viable 'moderate' opposition
to Assad, and the US was arming extremists" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
DIA Director (2012-14) Lieutenant General Michael Flynn confirmed that his agency had sent a
steady stream of warnings to the "civilian leadership" about the "dire consequences of toppling
Assad" and the jihadists' control of the opposition. Turkey was not working hard enough to stem
the flow of foreign fighters and weapons across its border and "was looking the other way when
it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria," Flynn says. "If the American public
saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go
ballistic" Flynn told Hersh. But the DIA's analysis, he says, "got enormous pushback" from the
Obama administration: "I felt that they did not want to hear the truth." Hersh's former JCS
adviser concurred, saying: "Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and
actually having a negative impact." "The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be
replaced by fundamentalists. The administration's policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad
to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say
Assad's got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better.
It's the 'anybody else is better' issue that the JCS had with Obama's policy" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
In September 2015 more than 50 intelligence analysts at the U.S. military's Central Command
lodged a formal complaint that their reports on IS and AQ affiliate 'Jabhat al-Nusrah' or
JN–some of which were briefed to the president–were being altered inappropriately
by senior Pentagon officials. In some cases, "key elements of intelligence reports were
removed" in order to alter their thrust. The CENTCOMM analysts' complaint was sent in July to
the Defense Department and sparked a DoD inspector general's investigation
(www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html).
This was likely done in response to explicit requests or at least implicit signaling coming
from White House officials on what and what is not politically correct in the president's mind.
Thus, the analysts' complaint alleges that the reports were altered to depict the jihadi groups
as weaker than analysts had assessed in an attempt by CENTCOM officials to adhere to the Obama
administration's line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and JN
(www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html).
This would correlate with the motive behind the Bengazi coverup as well, as the terrorist
attack occurred at the peak of the 2012 presidential campaign when the president was stumping
on slogans that he had destroyed AQ.
Perhaps in response to the growing tensions, President Obama threw the intelligence agencies
under the bus in September 2014 days after the US authorized itself to begin bombing Syria. He
claimed that it was the intelligence agencies who "underestimated what was taking place in
Syria" – a euphemism for the growing power of IS. He did this in August
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/statement-president-iraq) and again in
September ( http://thehill.com/policy/defense/219123-obama-intel-underestimated-isis
and http://time.com/3442254/obama-u-s-intelligence-isis/
). In turn, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has begun an investigation
and hearings on the intel redactions
(www.nationalreview.com/article/424000/house-investigates-alleged-doctoring-isis-intel-joel-gehrke),
and Obama's former DIA chief, General Michael Flynn, has urged that the investigation begin "at
the top" (
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/24/former-obama-dia-chief-intel-probe-should-focus-on-white-house/
and http://thehill.com/policy/defense/219123-obama-intel-underestimated-isis ).
But matters in the Obama administration are even worse. After illegally running guns to AQ
and then IS and thereby strengthening history's greatest terrorist threat emanating from a
non-state actor, the administration facilitated IS's financing by failing to bomb both the
IS-controlled oil wells and the hundred-long truck convoys that transported the oil to market
across the open desert in open daylight. Although in October 2014 a U.S. State Department,
deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Julieta Valls Noyes, claimed the
sale of IS fuel was one of the US's "principal concerns" and air strikes against them were "a
viable option", nothing was ever done
(www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-on-isis-us-planning-to-bomb-oil-pipelines-to-halt-jihadists-funding-9813980.html).
According to former Obama administration CIA director Mike Morell's statement on November 24th,
the administration refused to bomb oil wells which IS took control of because of the potential
environmental damage (
www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/25/obamas-former-cia-director-reveals-real-reason-admin-declined-to-hit-islamic-state-oil-wells/
).
One reason claimed for not attacking the truck convoys was that the drivers of the trucks
ferrying oil from Mosul, Iraq to the Turkish border for sale–more about NATO member
Turkey's role below–were not IS members but rather civilians. Only after Russia's
military intervention and bombing of the IS oil convoys, along with France's doing the same
after the November 13th Paris attacks, did the U.S. carry out its first sorties against the IS
oil convoys on 17 November 2015. In advance of the first U.S. attack on the convoys, U.S.
forces dropped leaflets warning the truck drivers (and any mujahedin accompanying them) of the
impending raid (
www.wsj.com/articles/french-airstrikes-in-syria-may-have-missed-islamic-state-1447685772 ).
It remains unclear how the U.S. knew the drivers were not IS members, whether this is in fact
true, whether this necessarily exonerates them, and whether it is possible to defeat an
extremist insurgency under such legal structures.
However, the perfidy of Obama's MB policy was far greater than simply the usual political
correctness and naivete`of the president and his milieu or the resulting policy failures in
Egypt, Libya Syria and Iraq. By looking the other way and even facilitating the flow of weapons
to rebels, the Obama administration was flirting with violating U.S. anti-terrorism laws. The
administration persisted in funneling arms to MB and other 'moderate' elements, when it was
obvious to any moderately informed analyst that it would be impossible to control the flow of
weapons in the murky circles and dark networks essence of frequently intersecting Islamist and
jihadist organizations.
The administration's main partner in this gambit–NATO member Turkey–would raise
similar and even more troubling issues.
Part 3: Obama's America, Erdogan's Turkey and the 'War Against' Jihadism in Syria and
Iraq is forthcoming later in March .
"... Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild once said "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." ..."
"... Unfortunately that system of control is evident in today's society. Special interests have been behind every US president including Trump. ..."
"... Trump is following his marching orders to big oil interests including his authorized theft of Syrian oil. ..."
"... Trump has given more support to Israel than any of his predecessors, which to the Pentagon is another important agenda. Israel is an important US ally in the Middle East besides Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Trump first trip as President was to Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons, which is business as usual for the arms industry. ..."
"... "We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with" ..."
"... "these events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail." ..."
"... 'War is a Racket.' ..."
"... "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents" ..."
"... "This conjunction, of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognise the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." ..."
"... (who was the emperor's private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the Military-Industrial Complex) ..."
"... "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces" ..."
"... "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. ..."
"... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." ..."
"... TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' ..."
"... "About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capital to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, they were very formal, there was governor, sir and all that, but they put me in a chair and they were in a big half-moon around me, and I said to them, look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what are you doing here? because in the CIA mission statement, it says that they are not operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't really give me an answer on that and then I said I want to go around the room and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do, half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that bizarre, I'm the governor and these guys wouldn't answer questions from me. Then they started questioning me and it was all about how I got elected. You know what was the most bizarre thing about it was? There was every array of person you could imagine, young people, old people, all nationalities and that's what really got to me. These were people you would see every day. They look like your neighbors." ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change, That's why, in the grand scheme of things, we don't care who's the head of the United States, we know more or less what's going to happen. And so, in this regard, even if we wanted to, it wouldn't make sense for us to interfere ..."
"... Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild once said "I care not what puppet is placed on the
throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls
Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money
supply."
Unfortunately that system of control is evident in today's society. Special interests
have been behind every US president including Trump.
Trump is following his marching orders to big oil interests including his authorized
theft of Syrian oil.
Trump has given more support to Israel than any of his predecessors, which to the
Pentagon is another important agenda. Israel is an important US ally in the Middle East besides
Saudi Arabia.
Trump first trip as President was to Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons, which is
business as usual for the arms industry.
There is a power structure that sets the rules of the game in Washington. The
Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) has an agenda and that is war. A US led war in the Middle
East with Iran is increasingly coming close to reality. It would affect Syria, Lebanon and the
Palestinians.
At some point, the war will reach Latin America targeting Venezuela because of its oil
reserves since Trump likes the "oil". As of now, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador are in chaos due to
new US-backed fascistic governments that re-established neoliberal economic policies which will
lead to the impoverishment of the masses.
The U.S. military has over 800 bases ranging from torture sites to drone hubs in over 70
countries. US tensions are more intense that in any period of time with Iran, Syria and
Hezbollah as Trump signed off on a new defense budget worth $738 billion including funds for
his new Space Force. Despite the fact that the Democrats are still angry over their election
defeat to Trump and are still pushing the Russia collusion hoax and now the farcical
impeachment scandal, but when it comes to foreign policy, both Democrats and Republicans are
unified with the same war agenda. The Trump administration continues its regime change
operations despite the fact that Trump said no more regime change wars when he was a candidate
in 2016. "We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with"
Fast-forward to 2019, Trump's CIA and others from his administration such as Eliot Abrams, a
Reagan-era neocon was given the green-light to conduct another regime change operation with a
nobody named Juan Guaido leading the Venezuelan opposition against the Maduro government which
failed. Bolivia on the other hand was a success for Washington which was planned the day Evo
Morales was elected President of Bolivia and was allied with Washington's adversaries in Latin
America including Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Brazil (before Balsonaro of course). Trump
continued the pentagon's agenda when he praised the new fascist Bolivian regime who forced
Morales from power with Washington's approval of course. Trump even threatened Nicaragua and
Venezuela with new attempts of regime change when he said that "these events send a strong
signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of
the people will always prevail." In other words, Trump is not in charge.
US Presidents do have some room to make decisions concerning domestic issues such as taxes
or healthcare, but when it comes to foreign policy, its a different story. It's not a
conspiracy theory.
Many people in power has told the world who is really in charge from politicians, Wall
Street bankers to military generals. In a 1935 speech by a Marine General Smedley titled
'War is a Racket.'
A veteran in the Spanish-American War who rose through the ranks during the course of his
career. From 1898 until his retirement in 1931 he was part of numerous interventions all around
the world. Butler was also the most decorated Marine ever with two Medals of Honor added to his
resume. He said the following:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make
Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it
that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al
Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents"
He was
correct. General Butler could have given notorious gangsters such as Al Capone a few lessons in
how to run a business empire. Then in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made it clear who
had the real power inside Washington in a farewell address he gave to the American public.
Eisenhower issued a stark warning on the dangers of the MIC posed to humanity.
Here is a part of the speech:
"This conjunction, of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is
new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even
spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal
government. We recognise the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes."
Eisenhower seemed like he was not in agreement with the deep state's decision to drop the
atomic bombs during World War II, perhaps he was cornered by the growing power of the deep
state. A comparison between the Roman Empire and America today is uncanny. In Rome for example,
choosing an emperor was made difficult by the ruling elite, political debates dominated how new
emperors were selected by old emperors, the senate, those who were influential and the
Praetorian Guard which is today's version of the Military-Industrial Complex.
The political and industrial heavyweights and its intelligence agencies select the best two
candidates from the only two political parties who are bought and paid for by corporate and
political interests make the important decisions. The Praetorian Guard (who was the
emperor's private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the
Military-Industrial Complex) had dominated the election process for the next century or so
resulting in targeted assassinations of several emperors they did not want in power before
Rome's collapse. They were assassinations and attempted assassinations on US presidents
resulting in four deaths, the most notable assassination in the 20th century was President John
F. Kennedy who wanted to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces" gave a speech on April
27th, 1961 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, many believe, including myself, that
it was the speech that eventually got him killed:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that
relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed,
no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no
democracy would ever hope or wish to match."
The " tightly knit, highly efficient machine " Kennedy spoke about directs U.S.
presidents to authorize wars or a covert operations to topple foreign governments. Kennedy
exposed that fact and followed that same fate as those emperors in Rome. Even in Domestic
politics, the U.S. government deep state apparatus is in control as the former Governor of
Minnesota Jesse Ventura , who is also a former Navy Seal, actor and professional wrestler who
now has his own show on RT news called 'The World According to Jesse'
admitted on TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' on how the CIA interrogated
him shortly after he became governor:
"About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the
capital to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, they
were very formal, there was governor, sir and all that, but they put me in a chair and they
were in a big half-moon around me, and I said to them, look before I answer any of your
questions, I want to know what are you doing here? because in the CIA mission statement, it
says that they are not operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't
really give me an answer on that and then I said I want to go around the room and I want each
one of you to tell me your name and what you do, half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that
bizarre, I'm the governor and these guys wouldn't answer questions from me. Then they started
questioning me and it was all about how I got elected. You know what was the most bizarre
thing about it was? There was every array of person you could imagine, young people, old
people, all nationalities and that's what really got to me. These were people you would see
every day. They look like your neighbors."
The US president including all elected congress members are all bought and paid for by the
arms industry, major corporations, bankers, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the media and a handful of
lobbyists with the Israel lobby being the most powerful. Trump is no exception. He will follow
the road given to him by those who are in charge and he will continue the path to a world war,
an agenda that been long in the making. One of America's favorite enemies, Russian President
Vladimir Putin was interviewed by Megan Kelly of NBC news in 2017 and was asked about
the so-called Russian collusion conspiracy theory and he said the following:
Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political
direction does not change, That's why, in the grand scheme of things, we don't care who's the
head of the United States, we know more or less what's going to happen. And so, in this regard,
even if we wanted to, it wouldn't make sense for us to interfere
Whether Trump wants war or even peace, it won't matter, he will do the right thing, for the
deep state that is.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published.
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
"... the Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments. ..."
"... The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [ 2 ]. This apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the Gospel. ..."
"... It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19, making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this fear. ..."
"... Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant consequences in terms of mortality. ..."
"... The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being. ..."
"... It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting Covid-19. ..."
Returning to the Covid-19 epidemic and the way governments are reacting to it, Thierry
Meyssan stresses that the authoritarian decisions of Italy and France have no medical
justification. They contradict the observations of the best infectiologists and the
instructions of the World Health Organization.
The Chinese Prime Minister, Li Keqiang, came to lead the operations in Wuhan and restore
the "celestial mandate" on January 27, 2020.
On November 17, 2019, the first case of a person infected with Covid-19 was diagnosed in
Hubei Province, China. Initially, doctors tried to communicate the seriousness of the disease,
but clashed with regional authorities. It was only when the number of cases increased and the
population saw the seriousness of the disease that the central government intervened.
This epidemic is not statistically significant. It kills very few people, although those it
does kill experience terrible respiratory distress.
Since ancient times, in Chinese culture, Heaven has given a mandate to the Emperor to govern
his subjects [ 1 ]. When he withdraws it, a disaster
strikes the country: epidemic, earthquake, etc. Although we are in modern times, President XI
felt threatened by the mismanagement of the Hubei regional government. The Council of State
therefore took matters into its own hands. It forced the population of Hubei's capital, Wuhan,
to remain confined to their homes. Within days, it built hospitals; sent teams to each house to
take the temperature of each inhabitant; took all potentially infected people to hospitals for
testing; treated those infected with chloroquine phosphate and sent others home; and treated
the critically ill with recombinant interferon Alfa 2B (IFNrec) for resuscitation. This vast
operation had no public health necessity, other than to prove that the Communist Party still
has the heavenly mandate.
During a press conference on Covid-19, the Iranian Deputy Minister of Health, Iraj
Harirchi, appeared contaminated.
Propagation in Iran
The epidemic spreads from China to Iran in mid-February 2020. These two countries have been
closely linked since ancient times. They share many common cultural elements. However, the
Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty
suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First
Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller
to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments.
When air pollution in Tehran increased beyond what they could bear, schools and government
offices were closed and half of the families moved to the countryside with their grandparents.
This has been happening several times a year for thirty-five years and seems normal.
The government and parliament are almost exclusively composed of veterans of the Iraq-Iran
war, that is, people who are extremely fragile in relation to Covid-19. So when these groups
were infected, many personalities developed the disease.
In view of the US sanctions, no Western bank covers the transport of medicines. Iran found
itself unable to treat the infected and care for the sick until the UAE broke the embargo and
sent two planes of medical equipment.
People who would not suffer in the other country died from the first coughs due to the
wounds in their lungs. As usual, the government closed schools. In addition, it deprogrammed
several cultural and sporting events, but did not ban pilgrimages. Some areas have closed
hotels to prevent the movement of sick people who can no longer find hospitals close to their
homes.
Quarantine in Japan
On February 4, 2020, a passenger on the US cruise ship Diamond Princess was diagnosed ill
from the Covid-19 and ten passengers were infected. The Japanese Minister of Health, Katsunobu
Kato, then imposed a two-week quarantine on the ship in Yokohama in order to prevent the
contagion from spreading to his country. In the end, out of the 3,711 people on board, the vast
majority of whom are over 70 years old, there would be 7 deaths.
The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari
Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public
relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their
nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this
story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could
spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [
2 ]. This
apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the
Gospel.
We remember that in 1898, William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, in order to increase the sales
of their daily newspapers, published false information in order to deliberately provoke a war
between the United States and the Spanish colony of Cuba. This was the beginning of "yellow
journalism" (publishing anything to make money). Today it is called "fake news".
It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19,
making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after
another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling
advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this
fear.
For the WHO Director, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, China and South Korea have set an
example by generalising screening tests; a way of saying that the Italian and French methods
are medical nonsense.
WHO intervention
The World Health Organization (WHO), which monitored the entire operation, noted the spread
of the disease outside China. On February 11th and 12th, it organized a global forum on
research and innovation on the epidemic in Geneva. At the forum, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus called in very measured terms for global collaboration [ 3 ].
In all of its messages, the WHO stressed : the low demographic impact of the epidemic; the
futility of border closures; the ineffectiveness of wearing gloves, masks (except for health
care workers) and certain "barrier measures" (for example, the distance of one metre only makes
sense with infected people, but not with healthy people); the need to raise the level of
hygiene, including hand washing, water disinfection and increased ventilation of confined
spaces. Finally, use disposable tissues or, failing that, sneeze into your elbow.
However, the WHO is not a medical organization, but a United Nations agency dealing with
health issues. Its officials, even if they are doctors, are also and above all politicians. It
cannot therefore denounce the abuses of certain states. Furthermore, since the controversy over
the H1N1 epidemic, the WHO must publicly justify all its recommendations. In 2009, it was
accused of having let itself be swayed by the interests of big pharmaceutical companies and of
having hastily sounded the alarm in a disproportionate manner [ 4 ]. This time it used the word
"pandemic" only as a last resort, on March 12th, four months later.
At the Franco-Italian summit in Naples on February 27, the French and Italian presidents,
Giuseppe Conte and Emmanuel Macron, announced that they would react together to the
pandemic.
Instrumentation in Italy and France
Modern propaganda should not be limited to the publication of false news as the United
Kingdom did to convince its people to enter the First World War, but should also be used in the
same way as Germany did to convince its people to fight in the Second World War. The recipe is
always the same: to exert psychological pressure to induce subjects to voluntarily practice
acts that they know are useless, but which will lead them to lie [ 5 ]. For example, in 2001, it was
common knowledge that those accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were not on the passenger
boarding lists. Yet, in shock, most accepted without question the inane accusations made by FBI
Director Robert Muller against "19 hijackers". Or, as is well known, President Hussein's Iraq
had only old Soviet Scud launchers with a range of up to 700 kilometers, but many Americans
caulked the windows and doors of their homes to protect themselves from the deadly gases with
which the evil dictator was going to attack America. This time, in the case of the Covid-19, it
is the voluntary confinement in the home that forces the person who accepts it to convince
himself of the veracity of the threat.
Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been
used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant
consequences in terms of mortality.
In Italy, the first step was to isolate the contaminated regions according to the principle
of quarantine, and then to isolate all citizens from each other, which follows a different
logic.
According to the President of the Italian Council, Giuseppe Conte, and the French President,
Emmanuel Macron, the aim of confining the entire population at home is not to overcome the
epidemic, but to spread it out over time so that the sick do not arrive at the same time in
hospitals and saturate them. In other words, it is not a medical measure, but an exclusively
administrative one. It will not reduce the number of infected people, but will postpone it in
time.
In order to convince the Italians and the French of the merits of their decision, Presidents
Conte and Macron first enlisted the support of committees of scientific experts. While these
committees had no objection to people staying at home, they had no objection to people going
about their business. Then Chairs Conte and Macron made it mandatory to have an official form
to go for a walk. This document on the letterheads of the respective ministries of the interior
is drawn up on honour and is not subject to any checks or sanctions.
The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions
disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all
circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being.
The French "reference daily" (sic) Le Monde, Facebook France and the French Ministry of
Health undertook to censor a video of Professor Didier Raoult, one of the world's most renowned
infectiologists, because by announcing the existence of a proven drug in China against
Covid-19, he highlighted the lack of a medical basis for the measures taken by President Macron
[ 6 ].
It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The
only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting
Covid-19.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because
the initiators, financiers and a large part of the anti-government fighters come from
abroad.
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army, like its direct opponents,
is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected, because
the allegedly competing gas pipeline projects never existed to begin with, as even the
Syrian president confirmed.
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change, which developed
into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the
US, Great Britain and France – and Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
Mr.
Fish / Truthdig
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the product of ancient ethnic hatreds. It is the tragic clash
between two peoples with claims to the same land. It is a manufactured conflict, the outcome of a
100-year-old colonial occupation by
Zionists
and later Israel, backed by the British, the United States and other major imperial powers. This project
is about the ongoing seizure of Palestinian land by the colonizers. It is about the rendering of the
Palestinians as non-people, writing them out of the historical narrative as if they never existed and
denying them basic human rights. Yet to state these incontrovertible facts of Jewish colonization --
supported by innumerable official reports and public and private communiques and statements, along with
historical records and events -- sees Israel's defenders level charges of anti-Semitism and racism.
Rashid Khalidi
, the
Edward Said
professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, in his book "
The
Hundred Years' War on Palestine
: A History of Settler Colonization and Resistance, 1917-2017" has
meticulously documented this long project of colonization of Palestine. His exhaustive research, which
includes internal, private communications between the early Zionists and Israeli leadership, leaves no
doubt that the Jewish colonizers were acutely aware from the start that the Palestinian people had to be
subjugated and removed to create the Jewish state. The Jewish leadership was also acutely aware that its
intentions had to be masked behind euphemisms, the patina of biblical legitimacy by Jews to a land that
had been Muslim since the seventh century, platitudes about human and democratic rights, the supposed
benefits of colonization to the colonized and a mendacious call for democracy and peaceful co-existence
with those targeted for destruction.
"This is a unique colonialism that we've been subjected to where they have no use for us," Khalidi
quotes Said as having written. "The best Palestinian for them," Said wrote, "is either dead or gone. It's
not that they want to exploit us, or that they need to keep us there in the way of Algeria or South
Africa as a subclass."
Zionism was birthed from the evils of anti-Semitism. It was a response to the discrimination and
violence inflicted on Jews, especially during the savage
pogroms
in Russia and Eastern Europe in the
late 19th century and early 20th century that left thousands dead. The Zionist leader Theodor Herzl in
1896 published "Der Judenstaat," or "The Jewish State," in which he warned that Jews were not safe in
Europe, a warning that within a few decades proved terrifyingly prescient with the rise of German
fascism.
Britain's support of a Jewish homeland was always colored by anti-Semitism. The 1917 decision by the
British Cabinet, as stated in the
Balfour Declaration
, to
support "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was a principal part of
a misguided endeavor based on anti-Semitic tropes. It was undertaken by the ruling British elites to
unite "international Jewry" -- including officials of Jewish descent in senior positions in the new
Bolshevik state in Russia -- behind Britain's flagging military campaign in World War I. The British
leaders were convinced that Jews secretly controlled the U.S. financial system. American Jews, once
promised a homeland in Palestine, would, they thought, bring the United States into the war and help
finance the war effort. To add to these bizarre anti-Semitic canards, the British believed that Jews and
Dönmes -- or "crypto-Jews" whose ancestors had converted to Christianity but who continued to practice the
rituals of Judaism in secret -- controlled the Turkish government. If the Zionists were given a homeland
in Palestine, the British believed, the Jews and Dönmes would turn on the Turkish regime, which was
allied with Germany in the war, and the Turkish government would collapse. World Jewry, the British were
convinced, was the key to winning the war.
"With 'Great Jewry' against us," warned Britain's Sir
Mark Sykes
, who with the French diplomat François
Georges-Picot created the secret treaty that carved up the
Ottoman Empire
between Britain and France,
there would be no possibility of victory. Zionism, Sykes said, was a powerful global subterranean force
that was "atmospheric, international, cosmopolitan, subconscious and unwritten, nay often unspoken."
The British elites, including Foreign Secretary
Arthur Balfour
, also believed that Jews could never be assimilated in British society and it was
better for them to emigrate. It is telling that the only Jewish member of Prime Minister David Lloyd
George's government, Edwin Montagu, vehemently opposed the Balfour Declaration. He argued that it would
encourage states to expel its Jews. "Palestine will become the world's ghetto," he warned.
This turned out to be the case after World War II when hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, many
rendered stateless, had nowhere to go but Palestine. Often, their communities had been destroyed during
the war or their homes and land had been confiscated. Those Jews who returned to countries like Poland
found they had nowhere to live and were often victims of discrimination as well as postwar anti-Semitic
attacks and even massacres.
The European powers dealt with the Jewish refugee crisis by shipping victims of the Holocaust to the
Middle East. So, while leading Zionists understood that they had to uproot and displace Arabs to
establish a homeland, they were also acutely aware that they were not wanted in the countries from which
they had fled or been expelled. The Zionists and their supporters may have mouthed slogans such as "a
land without a people for a people without a land" in speaking of Palestine, but, as the political
philosopher Hannah Arendt observed, European powers were attempting to deal with the crime carried out
against Jews in Europe by committing another crime, one against Palestinians. It was a recipe for endless
conflict, especially since giving the Palestinians under occupation full democratic rights would risk
loss of control of Israel by the Jews.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the godfather of the right-wing ideology that has dominated Israel since 1977, an
ideology openly embraced by Prime Ministers Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and
Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote bluntly in 1923: "Every native population in the world resists colonists as
long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized. That is
what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a
solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of 'Palestine' into the 'Land
of Israel.' "
This kind of public honesty, Khalidi notes, was rare among leading Zionists. Most of the Zionist
leaders "protested the innocent purity of their aims and deceived their Western listeners, and perhaps
themselves, with fairy tales about their benign intentions toward the Arab inhabitants of Palestine," he
writes. The Zionists -- in a situation similar to that of today's supporters of Israel -- were aware it
would be fatal to acknowledge that the creation of a Jewish homeland required the expulsion of the Arab
majority. Such an admission would cause the colonizers to lose the world's sympathy. But among themselves
the Zionists clearly understood that the use of armed force against the Arab majority was essential for
the colonial project to succeed. "Zionist colonization can proceed and develop only under the
protection of a power that is independent of the native population -- behind an iron wall, which the
native population cannot breach," Jabotinsky wrote.
The Jewish colonizers knew they needed an imperial patron to succeed and survive. Their first patron
was Britain, which sent 100,000 troops to crush the Palestinian revolt of the 1930s and armed and trained
Jewish militias known as the Haganah. The savage repression of that revolt included wholesale executions
and aerial bombardment and left 10% of the adult male Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or
exiled. The Zionists' second patron became the United States, which now, generations later, provides
more than $3 billion a year
to Israel. Israel,
despite the myth of self-reliance it peddles about itself, would not be able to maintain its Palestinian
colonies but for its imperial benefactors. This is why the
boycott, divestment and sanctions movement
frightens Israel. It is also why I support the BDS
movement.
The early Zionists bought up huge tracts of fertile Palestinian land and drove out the indigenous
inhabitants. They subsidized European Jewish settlers sent to Palestine, where 94% of the inhabitants
were Arabs. They created organizations such as the Jewish Colonization Association, later called the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, to administer the Zionist project.
But, as Khalidi writes, "once colonialism took on a bad odor in the post-World War II era of
decolonization, the colonial origins and practice of Zionism and Israel were whitewashed and conveniently
forgotten in Israel and the West. In fact, Zionism -- for two decades the coddled step-child of British
colonialism -- rebranded itself as an anticolonial movement."
"Today, the conflict that was engendered by this classic nineteenth-century European colonial venture
in a non-European land, supported from 1917 onward by the greatest Western imperial power of its age, is
rarely described in such unvarnished terms," Khalidi writes. "Indeed, those who analyze not only Israeli
settlement efforts in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, but the entire
Zionist enterprise from the perspective of its colonial settler origins and nature are often vilified.
Many cannot accept the contradiction inherent in the idea that although Zionism undoubtedly succeeded in
creating a thriving national entity in Israel, its roots are as a colonial settler project (as are those
of other modern countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Nor can they accept
that it would not have succeeded but for the support of the great imperial powers, Britain and later the
United States. Zionism, therefore, could be and was both a national and a colonial settler movement at
one and the same time."
One of the central tenets of the Zionist and Israeli colonization is the denial of an authentic,
independent Palestinian identity. During the British control of Palestine, the population was officially
divided between Jews and "non-Jews." "There were no such thing as Palestinians they did not exist,"
onetime Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir quipped. This erasure, which requires an egregious act of
historical amnesia, is what the Israeli sociologist
Baruch Kimmerling
called the "politicide" of the Palestinian people. Khalidi writes, "The surest way to eradicate a
people's right to their land is to deny their historical connection to it."
The creation of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, was achieved by the Haganah and other Jewish
groups through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and massacres that spread terror among the
Palestinian population. The Haganah, trained and armed by the British, swiftly seized most of Palestine.
It emptied West Jerusalem and cities such as Haifa and Jaffa, along with numerous towns and villages, of
their Arab inhabitants. Palestinians call this moment in their history the Nakba, or the Catastrophe.
"By the summer of 1949, the Palestinian polity had been devastated and most of its society uprooted,"
Khalidi writes. "Some 80 percent of the Arab population of the territory that at war's end became the new
state of Israel had been forced from their homes and lost their lands and property. At least 720,000 of
the 1.3 million Palestinians were made refugees. Thanks to this violent transformation, Israel controlled
78 percent of the territory of former Mandatory Palestine, and now ruled over the 160,000 Palestinian
Arabs who had been able to remain, barely one-fifth of the prewar Arab population."
Since 1948, Palestinians have heroically mounted one resistance effort after another, all unleashing
disproportionate Israeli reprisals and a demonization of the Palestinians as terrorists. But this
resistance has also forced the world to recognize the presence of Palestinians, despite the feverish
efforts of Israel, the United States and many Arab regimes to remove them from historical consciousness.
The repeated revolts, as Said noted, gave the Palestinians the right to tell their own story, the
"permission to narrate."
The colonial project has poisoned Israel, as feared by its most prescient leaders, including Moshe
Dayan and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish extremist in 1995.
Israel is an apartheid state that rivals and often surpasses the onetime savagery and racism of apartheid
South Africa. Its democracy -- which was always exclusively for Jews -- has been hijacked by extremists,
including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have implemented racial laws that were once
championed mainly by marginalized fanatics such as
Meir Kahane
. The Israeli public is
infected with racism. "Death to Arabs" is a popular chant at Israeli soccer matches. Jewish mobs and
vigilantes, including thugs from right-wing youth groups such as Im Tirtzu, carry out indiscriminate acts
of vandalism and violence against dissidents, Palestinians, Israeli Arabs and the hapless African
immigrants who live crammed into the slums of Tel Aviv. Israel has promulgated a series of discriminatory
laws against non-Jews that eerily resemble the racist
Nuremberg Laws
that disenfranchised Jews in Nazi Germany. The Communities Acceptance Law permits exclusively Jewish
towns in Israel's Galilee region to bar applicants for residency on the basis of "suitability to the
community's fundamental outlook." The late Uri Avnery, a left-wing politician and journalist, wrote that
"Israel's very existence is threatened by fascism."
In recent years, up to 1 million Israelis have
left to live in
the United States
, many of them among Israel's most enlightened and educated citizens. Within Israel,
human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists -- Israeli and Palestinian -- have found themselves
vilified as traitors in government-sponsored smear campaigns, placed under state surveillance and
subjected to arbitrary arrests. The Israeli educational system, starting in primary school, is an
indoctrination machine for the military. The Israeli army periodically unleashes massive assaults with
its air force, artillery and mechanized units on the largely defenseless 1.85 million Palestinians in
Gaza, resulting in thousands of Palestinian dead and wounded. Israel runs the
Saharonim detention camp
in the Negev Desert, one of the largest detention centers in the world,
where African immigrants can be held for up to three years without trial.
The great Jewish scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz, whom
Isaiah Berlin
called "the conscience of Israel,"
saw the mortal danger to Israel of its colonial project. He warned that if Israel did not separate church
and state and end its colonial occupation of the Palestinians it would give rise to a corrupt rabbinate
that would warp Judaism into a fascistic cult. "Religious nationalism is to religion what National
Socialism was to socialism," said Leibowitz, who died in 1994. He saw that the blind veneration of the
military, especially after the 1967 war in which Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem, would
result in the degeneration of the Jewish society and the death of democracy.
"Our situation will deteriorate to that of a second Vietnam [a reference to the war waged by the
United States in the 1970s], to a war in constant escalation without prospect of ultimate resolution,"
Leibowitz wrote. He foresaw that "the Arabs would be the working people and the Jews the administrators,
inspectors, officials, and police -- mainly secret police. A state ruling a hostile population of 1.5
million to 2 million foreigners would necessarily become a secret-police state, with all that this
implies for education, free speech and democratic institutions. The corruption characteristic of every
colonial regime would also prevail in the State of Israel. The administration would have to suppress Arab
insurgency on the one hand and acquire Arab
Quislings
on the other. There is also good reason to fear that the Israel Defense Force, which has
been until now a people's army, would, as a result of being transformed into an army of occupation,
degenerate, and its commanders, who will have become military governors, resemble their colleagues in
other nations."
The Zionists could never have colonized the Palestinians without the backing of Western imperial
powers whose motives were tainted by anti-Semitism. Many of the Jews who fled to Israel would not have
done so but for the virulent European anti-Semitism that by the end of World War II saw 6 million Jews
murdered. Israel was all that many impoverished and stateless survivors, robbed of their national rights,
communities, homes and often most of their relatives, had left. It became the tragic fate of the
Palestinians, who had no role in the European pogroms or the Holocaust, to be sacrificed on the altar of
hate.
The USA is an imperial country. And wars is how empire is sustained and expanded. Bacevich does not even mention this
fact.
Notable quotes:
"... While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis. ..."
"... This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive and deeply rooted American militarism has become. ..."
"... we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. ..."
"... The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all, the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade now. ..."
"... Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans. Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly, how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah. He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered Afghans. ..."
"... By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money ..."
"... Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort. ..."
The Afghanistan Papers could have been the start of redemption, but it's all been subsumed
by impeachment and an uninterested public.
....
While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one
that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution
to the impeachment crisis.
This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war
should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive
and deeply rooted American militarism has become.
Take seriously the speechifying heard on the floor of the House of Representatives in recent
days and you'll be reassured that the United States remains a nation of laws, with Democrats
and Republicans alike affirming their determination to defend our democracy and preserve the
Constitution, even while disagreeing on what that might require at present.
Take seriously the contents of the Afghanistan Papers and you'll reach a different
conclusion: we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American
soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. U.S. military expenditures and the Pentagon's
array of foreign bases far exceed those of any other nation on the planet. In our willingness
to use force, we (along with Israel) lead the pack. Putative adversaries such as China and
Russia are models of self-restraint by comparison. And when it comes to cumulative body count,
the United States is in a league of its own.
Yet since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, U.S. forces have rarely
accomplished the purposes for which they are committed, the Pentagon concealing failure by
downsizing its purposes. Afghanistan offers a good example. What began as Operation Enduring
Freedom has become in all but name Operation Decent Interval, the aim being to disengage in a
manner that will appear responsible, if only for a few years until the bottom falls out.
So the real significance of the Post 's Afghanistan Papers is this: t hey invite
Americans to contemplate a particularly vivid example what our misplaced infatuation with
military power produces. Sadly, it appears evident that we will refuse the invitation. Don't
blame Trump for this particular example of Washington's egregious irresponsibility.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,will
be published next month.
The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all,
the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade
now.
Anyway, nobody likes a bipartisan fiasco that cannot be neatly blamed on Team R (or Team
D).
Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans.
Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly,
how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah.
He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered
Afghans.
By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for
outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in
numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money. What a joke
this nations foreign policy is and the ignorant, don't care American people have become. Like
never before. There were years when people actually talked about subjects. Not now, if you
mention the weather they cower and look pained. The old days really were better.
One example aside from the above: compare President Kennedy to Trump. What a riot...
Well, these documents are highly unsurprising. Everybody has known the facts for a long time.
Everybody also knows that the US "government" will not change its ways. Its sole purpose and
mission is to obliterate everything except Israel, and these documents are evidence of
massive SUCCESS in its mission, not evidence of failure.
Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front
line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with
obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort.
This is also to say that misleading documents and briefings from the military about
progress in Afghanistan, while contemptible, did not cause the strategic failure.
Contemporary reports from the press and other agencies indicated the effort was not working
out plainly to anyone who wanted to pay attention. Our political leaders chose to ignore the
truth for political gain.
A more realistic temperament chastened by experience would have been more inclined to
criticize and make corrections, and summon the courage to cut our losses rather than crow
ignominiously about "cutting and running." Few such temperaments, it seems at least, make it
to the top thee days.
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
This article fails to mention his most important contribution . He tipped off
Roosevelt that a fascist plot was being prepared to take over the American government "
The Wall Street Putsch, as it's known today, was a plot by a group of right-wing
financiers.
"They thought that they could convince Roosevelt, because he was of their, the patrician
class, they thought that they could convince Roosevelt to relinquish power to basically a
fascist, military-type government," Denton says.
4 hours ago
The US foreign policy was never about Spreading Democracy, it's always about elevating the dictator we can do business
with.
Always.
4 hours ago
Surprisingly, Butlers book The Plot to Seize the White House, where a cabal of bankers sought to use Butler as a front man
to oust FDR getS little to no notice.
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
Actually any supremacist ideology produces something like an apartheid regime for other
nationalities.
The current situation looks like a dead end with little chances of reconciliation, especially
after recent killing of protesters by Israel army/snipers. But in general, it is iether a two
state solution of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the same state. The elements of
theocratic state should be eliminated and right wing parties outlawed as neofascist parties which
threatens democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies -- allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the Jordan Valley to Israel. ..."
The threat of a new war with Iran that might have replicated what has been the worst
disaster in the history of America's international misadventures -- George W. Bush's invasion
of Iraq based on fabricated lies -- sucked the air out of all other international diplomatic
activity, not least of what used to be called the Middle East peace process.
Yet the failure of the peace process has not been the consequence of recent mindless and
destructive actions by Donald Trump and of the clownish shenanigans of his son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, who was charged with helping Israeli hardliners in nailing down permanently the
Palestinian occupation. For all the damage they caused (mainly to Palestinians), prospects for
a two-state solution actually ended during President Barack Obama's administration, despite
Secretary of State John Kerry's energetic efforts to renew the stalled negotiations. They were
not resumed because Obama, like his predecessors, failed to take the tough measures that were
necessary to overcome Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's determination to prevent the
emergence of a Palestinian state, notwithstanding his pledge in his Bar-Ilan speech of 2009 to
implement the agreements of the Oslo accords.
Yes, Obama and Kerry did warn that Israel's continued occupation might lead to an Israeli
apartheid regime. But knowing how deeply the accusation of an incipient Israeli apartheid could
anger right-wingers in Israel and in the U.S., they repeatedly followed that warning with the
assurance that "America will always have Israel's back." It was the sequence of this two-part
statement that convinced Netanyahu that AIPAC had succeeded in getting American presidents to
protect Israel's impunity. Had Obama and Kerry reversed that sequence, first noting that
the U.S. had always had Israel's back, and then warning that Israel is now on the verge
of trading its democracy for apartheid, the warning might have had quite different implications
for Israel's government.
The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country
on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and
therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies --
allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White
party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most
basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a
unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not
because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject
were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the
Jordan Valley to Israel.
For the Palestinians, territory is the most critical of the final status issues. The current
internationally recognized borders that separate Israel and the Occupied Territories reduced
the territory originally assigned to Palestinians in the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 from
roughly half of Palestine to 22 percent. Israel, which was assigned originally roughly the
other half of Palestine, now has 78 percent, not including Palestinian territory Israel has
confiscated for its illegal settlements.
No present or prospective Palestinian leadership will accept any further reduction of
territory from their promised state. Given the territory they already lost in 1947, and again
in 1949, and given Israel's refusal to accept the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, is
it really reasonable to expect Palestinians to give up any further territory? Where else other
than the West Bank could Palestine refugees return to?
The one-state solution that is preferred by many Israelis is essentially a continuation of
the present de facto apartheid. It is not the one-state alternative any Palestinian would
accept. Repeated polling has shown that a majority of Jewish Israelis are unprepared to grant
equal rights to Palestinians in a one-state arrangement. This opposition is unsurprising, for
the inclusion in Israel's body politic of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would mean the end of
Israel as a Jewish state, for Israel's non-Jewish citizens would then outnumber its Jewish
ones, and may already do so. Of course, Israel could contrive a non-voting status for the West
Bank's Palestinians, something many Jewish Israelis and political parties actually advocate,
but that would not deceive anyone. It would mean the formal end of Israel's democracy.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I have long maintained that if Israel were compelled to
choose between one state that grants full equality to Palestinians now under occupation and two
states that conform substantially to existing agreements and international law, and no other
options were available to it, the majority of Israelis would opt for two states. Why? Because
as noted above, the overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any arrangement that might produce
a Palestinian majority with the same rights Israeli Jewish citizens enjoy. Of course, Israel
has never been compelled to make such a choice, nor will they be compelled to do so by the
international community.
However, they could be compelled to do so by the Palestinians, but only if Palestinians were
finally to expel their current leadership and choose a more honest and courageous one. That new
leadership would have to shut down the Palestinian Authority, which its present leaders allowed
Israel to portray as an arrangement that places Palestinians on the path to statehood, of
course in some undefined future. Israel has deliberately perpetuated that myth to conceal its
real intention to keep the current occupation unchanged. The new Palestinian leadership would
have to declare that since Israel has denied them their own state and established a one-state
reality, Palestinians will no longer deny that reality. Consequently, the national struggle
will now be for full citizenship in the one state that Israel has forced them into. I have
argued for the past two decades that the one-state option is far more likely to open a path to
a two-state solution, however counter intuitive that may seem to be. Palestinians rejected it
categorically from the outset, but
younger Palestinians have come around to accepting it -- even preferring it to the two-state
model.
Unlike the struggle for a two-state solution, a goal that has so easily been manipulated by
Israel to mean whatever serves their real goal of preventing such an outcome -- and also so
easily allowed international actors to pretend they have not given up their efforts to achieve
that outcome, an anti-apartheid struggle does not lend itself to such deceptions. South Africa
has taught the world too well what apartheid looks like, as well as how the international
community could deal with it. Of course, South Africa has also shown how long and bloody a
struggle against apartheid can be, and the terrible price paid by the victims of such a regime.
But Palestinians already live in such a regime, and have for long been paying a terrible price
for their subjugation.
Yet deeper and more troubling questions are raised by the choices that now face Israel,
including whether the original idea of the Zionist movement of a state that is both Jewish and
democratic is not deeply oxymoronic, a question that not only Israelis but Jews outside of
Israel must address. That question is underscored by the challenges to India's democracy posed
by its prime minister's decision to turn his country into a Hindu nation. It is a question that
did not escape some of the founders of the Zionist movement, who argued that Zionism should
define the state as Jewish only in its ethnic and secular cultural dimensions. But that this is
not how Jewish identity is treated in Israel is undeniable.
Imagine if Israel's laws defining national identity and citizenship, as recently
reformulated by Israel's Knesset, were adopted by the U.S. Congress or by other Western
democratic countries, and if Christianity in its "cultural dimensions" were declared to be
their national identity, with citizenship also granted by conversion to the dominant religion,
as is now the case in Israel, where arrangements for Jewish religious conversions are part of
the Prime Minister's office.
Is this not what America's founders, and the waves of immigrants, including European Jews,
sought to escape from? And how would Jews react today to legislation in the U.S. Congress that
would explicitly seek to maintain the majority status of Christians in the U.S.? Are Jews to
take pride in a Jewish state that adopts citizenship requirements that mirror those advocated
by white Christian supremacists? These supremacists have already proclaimed jubilantly that
Israel's policies vindicate the ones they have long been advocating.
It is true, of course, that for some Jews, aware of the history of anti-Semitism that has
spanned the ages, and especially the Holocaust, Zionism's contradictions with democratic
principles are an unpleasant but inescapable dilemma they can live with. As a survivor of the
Holocaust, I can understand that. But I also understand that the likely consequences of these
contradictions are not benign, and can yield their own terrible outcomes, particularly when
they lead to the dalliances by the prime minister of a Jewish state with right-wing racist and
xenophobic heads of state and of political parties that have fascist and anti-Semitic
parentage.
Legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress and by Trump, and recently celebrated by his
son-in-law Kushner in a New York Times op-ed, proposing that criticism of
Zionism be outlawed as antisemitism , would be laughable, were it not so clearly -- and
outrageously -- intended to deny freedom of speech on this subject. Yet laughable it is, for
its first target would have to be Jews -- not liberal left-wingers but the most Orthodox Jews,
known as Haredim, in Israel and in America.
At the very inception of the Zionist movement 150 years ago, not only the Haredim but the
overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jewry everywhere was opposed to Zionism, which it considered
to be a Jewish heresy, not only because the Zionists were mostly secularists, but because of an
oath taken by Jewish leaders after the destruction of the Second Temple following their exile
from Palestine, that Jews would not reestablish a Jewish kingdom except following the messianic
era. Zionism was also bitterly opposed by much of the world's Jewish Reform movement, many of
whose leaders insisted that Jewishness is a religion, not a political identity.
Much of Orthodox Jewry did not end its opposition to Zionism until after the war of 1967,
but many if not most Haredis continue to oppose Zionism as heresy. Most of its members refuse
to serve in Israel's military, to celebrate Israel's Independence Day, sing its national
anthem, and do not allow prayers in their synagogues for the wellbeing of Israel's political
leaders. Trump, Kushner, and the U.S. Congress would have to arrest them as anti-Semites.
I have no doubt that Trump's rage at the Jewish chairmen of the two Congressional committees
that led the procedures for his impeachment will sooner or later explode in anti-Semitic
expletives. The only reason it has not done so yet is because of Trump's fear of jeopardizing
Evangelical support and Sheldon Adelson's mega bucks. After all, Trump already told us that the
neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville declaiming "Jews will not replace us" included "very fine
people." Netanyahu never criticized Trump's statement, for he too does not want to jeopardize
certain relationships, namely the "very fine people" he has embraced -- leaders in Hungary,
Poland, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
If Trump's son-in-law is searching for anti-Semites, he should have been told they are far
closer at hand than in America's schools, for they are ensconced in the White House. They are
also to be found in Jerusalem where they are being accorded honors by Netanyahu. The
anti-Semitic dog whistling contained in Trump's attacks on the two Jewish congressmen were not
misunderstood by his hardcore supporters -- who now include the entire leadership of the
Republican party -- who Trump needs to take him to victory in the coming presidential
elections, or to keep him in the White House were he to lose those elections.
If apartheid is coming (or has come) out of Zion, it should not shock that what may come out
of Washington is a repeat by Trump's Republican shock troops of what occurred in Berlin in
1933, when the Bundestag was taken over by the Nazi party and ended Germany's democracy.
The essential facts are these. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. The war's nominal purpose was to liberate
Cuba from oppressive colonial rule. The war's subsequent conduct found the United States not only invading and occupying Cuba, but
also seizing Puerto Rico, completing a deferred annexation of Hawaii, scarfing up various other small properties in the Pacific,
and, not least of all, replacing Spain as colonial masters of the Philippine Archipelago, located across the Pacific.
That the true theme of the war with Spain turned out to be not liberation but expansion should not come as a terrible surprise.
From the very founding of the first British colonies in North America, expansion has constituted an enduring theme of the American
project. Separation from the British Empire after 1776 only reinforced the urge to grow. Yet prior to 1898, that project had been
a continental one. The events of that year signaled the transition from continental to extra-continental expansion. American leaders
were no longer content to preside over a republic stretching from sea to shining sea.
In that regard, the decision to annex the Philippines stands out as especially instructive. If you try hard enough -- and some
politicians at the time did -- you can talk yourself into believing that U.S. actions in the Caribbean in 1898 represented something
other than naked European-style imperialism with all its brute force to keep the natives in line. After all, the United States did
refrain from converting Cuba into a formal colony and by 1902 had even granted Cubans a sort of ersatz independence. Moreover, both
Cuba and Puerto Rico fell within "our backyard," as did various other Caribbean republics soon to undergo U.S. military occupation.
Geographically, all were located within the American orbit.
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
So the Philippine Archipelago had become ours. In short order, however, authorities in Washington changed their mind about the
wisdom of accepting responsibility for several thousand islands located nearly 7,000 miles from San Francisco.
The sprawling American colony turned out to be the ultimate impulse purchase. And as with most impulse purchases, enthusiasm soon
enough gave way to second thoughts and even regret. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt was privately referring to the Philippines
as America's "Achilles heel." The United States had paid Spain $20 million for an acquisition that didn't turn a profit and couldn't
be defended given the limited capabilities of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. To complicate matters further, from Tokyo's perspective,
the Philippines fell within its backyard. So far as Imperial Japan was concerned, imperial America was intruding on its turf.
Thus was the sequence of events leading to the Pacific War of 1941-1945 set in motion. I am not suggesting that Pearl Harbor was
an inevitable consequence of the United States annexing the Philippines. I am suggesting that it put two rival imperial powers on
a collision course.
One can, of course, find in the ensuing sequence of events matters worth celebrating -- great military victories at places like
Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, culminating after 1945 in a period of American dominion. But the legacy of our flirtation with empire
in the Western Pacific also includes much that is lamentable -- the wars in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and now an intensifying
rivalry with China destined to lead we know not where.
If history could be reduced to a balance sheet, the U.S. purchase of the Philippines would rate as a pretty bad bargain. That
first $20 million turned out to be only a down payment.
No. Absolutely not. We would have been much better off had the US not violently dismantled the first Republic of the Philippines.
The canard that our greatest generation of Filipinos (Generation of 1898) was not fit to govern us was a product of US Assimilation
Schools designed to rid the Philippines of Filipinos- by wiring them to automatically think anything non-Filipino will always
be better (intenalized racism) and to train the primarily to leave and work abroad and blend -in as Americans (objectification)
and never stand out as self-respecting Filipinos who aspire to be the best they can be propelled by the Filipino story.
Our multiple Golden Ages only occurred prior to US invasion and colonization.
YES, the USA owes us. We are every American's 2nd original sin.
We do not owe US anything. The USA owes us a great big deal, More than any other country on earth.
THEY (USA) owes us:
1) For violently dismantling the first Republic of the Philippines at the cost of over a million martyrs from the greatest generation
of Filipinos.
2) For US Assimilation Schools denying us the intensity of our golden ages prior to their invasion as our drivers for PH civilization,
turning us into a country that trains its people to leave and assimilate in US culture and become workers for Americans and foreigners
abroad. This results in a Philippines WITHOUT Filipinos.
3) For US bombs turning Intramuros into dust- the centerpiece of the Paris of the East, with treasures, publications and art
much older that the US- without consent from any Filipino leader. And for dismantling our train system from La Union to Bicol.
4) For the US Rescission Act which denied Filipino veterans due recognition, dignity and honor- vets who fought THEIR war against
Japan on our soil.
5) For the canard that Aguinaldo, our 29-year old father and liberator of the Republic of the Philippines, is a villain and
a traitor, even inventing the heroism of Andres Bonifacio which ultimately resulted in "Toxic Nationalism" which Rizal warned
us about in the persona of Simoun in El Filibusterismo who will drive our nation to self-destruction and turn a paradise into
a desert by being automatically wired to think anything non-Filipino will and always be better.
The core of colonial mentality is the misguided belief that we cannot have been a greater country had the US not destroyed
the first Republic of the Philippines- a lie that was embedded in our minds by the US discrediting Aguinaldo and the Generation
of 1896/1898- the greatest generation of Filipinos.
It does seem to me that every country which was able and could afford to expand its territory did so. In Europe, exceptions to
that a wish were Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine, ?Romania and Chechia.
So, US had company!
President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that
country:
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. . . And
one night late it came to me this way. . .1) That we could not give them back to Spain- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;
3) that we not leave them to themselves-they are unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there
worse than Spain's wars; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and
uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ
also died."
Making Christians of a country that had its first Catholic diocese 9 years before the Spanish Armada sailed for England, with
4 dioceses in place years before the English sailed for Jamestown.
Dan Carlin did an outstanding podcast on the choices America faced after acquiring the Philippines. McKinley was anti-empire,
but the industrialists in his administration hungered to thwart the British, French and Dutch empires in the Pacific by establishing
a colony all of our own.
As someone born in Latin America, we never saw the US as anything but a brutal predator, whose honeyed words were belied by their
deeds. I wonder if it began with the Philippines. There was the Mexican war first, which wrested a lot of territory from Mexico.
And then there was the invasion of Canada to bring the blessings of democracy to Canadians (it ended with the White House in flames).
I suspect that the beliefe that you are exceptional and blessed by God can lead to want to straighten up other people "for their
own good", and make a profit besides - a LOT of profit.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for high-value
contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of corruption that
proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Notable quotes:
"... "this thing going on" ..."
"... a regional culture of corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there. ..."
The Fraud of War: U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have stolen tens of millions through
bribery, theft, and rigged contracts.
U.S. Army Specialist Stephanie Charboneau sat at the center of a complex trucking network in Forward
Operating Base Fenty near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that distributed daily tens of thousands
of gallons of what troops called "liquid gold": the refined petroleum that fueled the international
coalition's vehicles, planes, and generators.
A prominent sign in the base read: "The Army Won't Go If The Fuel Don't Flow." But Charboneau,
31, a mother of two from Washington state, felt alienated after a supervisor's harsh rebuke. Her
work was a dreary routine of recording fuel deliveries in a computer and escorting trucks past a
gate. But it was soon to take a dark turn into high-value crime.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
She began an affair with a civilian, Jonathan Hightower, who worked for a Pentagon contractor that
distributed fuel from Fenty, and one day in March 2010 he told her about "this thing going on"
at other U.S. military bases around Afghanistan, she recalled in a recent telephone interview.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
When Hightower suggested they start doing the same, Charboneau said, she agreed.
In so doing, Charboneau contributed to thefts by U.S. military personnel of at least $15 million
worth of fuel since the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. And eventually she became one of at
least 115 enlisted personnel and military officers convicted since 2005 of committing theft, bribery,
and contract-rigging crimes valued at $52 million during their deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq,
according to a comprehensive tally of court records by
the Center for Public Integrity.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for
high-value contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of
corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Charboneau, whose Facebook posts reveal a bright-eyed woman with a shoulder tattoo and a huge grin,
snuggling with pets and celebrating the 2015 New Year with her children in Seattle Seahawks jerseys,
now sits in Carswell federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, serving a seven-year sentence for her crime.
"... Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable as an American vessel. ..."
"... Soon more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns. ..."
"... Attack on the Liberty ..."
"... Attack on the Liberty ..."
"... Dangerous Liaison, ..."
"... In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying $600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft. ..."
"... Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner. ..."
In early June of 1967, at the onset of the Six Day War, the Pentagon sent the USS Liberty from Spain into international waters
off the coast of Gaza to monitor the progress of Israel's attack on the Arab states. The Liberty was a lightly armed surveillance
ship.
Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify
the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable
as an American vessel.
Soon more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed
on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns.
A few minutes later a second wave of planes streaked overhead, French-built Mystere jets, which not only pelted the ship with
gunfire but also with napalm bomblets, coating the deck with the flaming jelly. By now, the Liberty was on fire and dozens were wounded
and killed, excluding several of the ship's top officers.
The Liberty's radio team tried to issue a distress call, but discovered the frequencies had been jammed by the Israeli planes
with what one communications specialist called "a buzzsaw sound." Finally, an open channel was found and the Liberty got out a message
it was under attack to the USS America, the Sixth Fleet's large aircraft carrier.
Two F-4s left the carrier to come to the Liberty's aid. Apparently, the jets were armed only with nuclear weapons. When word reached
the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara became irate and ordered the jets to return. "Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft
back immediately," he barked. McNamara's injunction was reiterated in saltier terms by Admiral David L. McDonald, the chief of Naval
Operations: "You get those fucking airplanes back on deck, and you get them back down." The planes turned around. And the attack
on the Liberty continued.
After the Israeli fighter jets had emptied their arsenal of rockets, three Israeli attack boats approached the Liberty. Two torpedoes
were launched at the crippled ship, one tore a 40-foot wide hole in the hull, flooding the lower compartments, and killing more than
a dozen American sailors.
As the Liberty listed in the choppy seas, its deck aflame, crew members dropped life rafts into the water and prepared to scuttle
the ship. Given the number of wounded, this was going to be a dangerous operation. But it soon proved impossible, as the Israeli
attack boats strafed the rafts with machine gun fire. No body was going to get out alive that way.
After more than two hours of unremitting assault, the Israelis finally halted their attack. One of the torpedo boats approached
the Liberty. An officer asked in English over a bullhorn: "Do you need any help?"
The wounded commander of the Liberty, Lt. William McGonagle, instructed the quartermaster to respond emphatically: "Fuck you."
The Israeli boat turned and left.
A Soviet destroyer responded before the US Navy, even though a US submarine, on a covert mission, was apparently in the area and
had monitored the attack. The Soviet ship reached the Liberty six hours before the USS Davis. The captain of the Soviet ship offered
his aid, but the Liberty's conning officer refused.
Finally, 16 hours after the attack two US destroyers reached the Liberty. By that time, 34 US sailors were dead and 174 injured,
many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk
about their ordeal with the press.
The following morning Israel launched a surprise invasion of Syria, breaching the new cease-fire agreement and seizing control
of the Golan Heights.
Within three weeks, the Navy put out a 700-page report, exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and
that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair
should be forgotten. "These errors do occur," McNamara concluded.
***
In Assault on the Liberty
, a harrowing first-hand account by James Ennes Jr., McNamara's version of events is proven to be as big a sham as his concurrent
lies about Vietnam. Ennes's book created a media storm when it was first published by Random House in 1980, including (predictably)
charges that Ennes was a liar and an anti-Semite. Still, the book sold more than 40,000 copies, but was eventually allowed to go
out of print. Now Ennes has published an updated version, which incorporates much new evidence that the Israeli attack was deliberate
and that the US government went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the truth.
It's a story of Israel aggression, Pentagon incompetence, official lies, and a cover-up that persists to this day. The book gains
much of its power from the immediacy of Ennes's first-hand account of the attack and the lies that followed.
Now, decades later, Ennes warns that the bloodbath on board the Liberty and its aftermath should serve as a tragic cautionary
tale about the continuing ties between the US government and the government of Israel.
The Attack on the Liberty is the kind of book that makes your blood seethe. Ennes skillfully documents the life of the
average sailor on one of the more peculiar vessels in the US Navy, with an attention for detail that reminds one of Dana or O'Brien.
After all, the year was 1967 and most of the men on the Liberty were certainly glad to be on a non-combat ship in the middle of the
Mediterranean, rather than in the Gulf of Tonkin or Mekong Delta.
But this isn't Two Years Before the Mast. In fact, Ennes's tour on the Liberty last only a few short weeks. He had scarcely settled
into a routine before his new ship was shattered before his eyes.
Ennes joined the Liberty in May of 1967, as an Electronics Material Officer. Serving on a "spook ship", as the Liberty was known
to Navy wives, was supposed to be a sure path to career enhancement. The Liberty's normal routine was to ply the African coast, tuning
in its eavesdropping equipment on the electronic traffic in the region.
The Liberty had barely reached Africa when it received a flash message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sail from the Ivory Coast
to the Mediterranean, where it was to re-deploy off the coast of the Sinai to monitor the Israeli attack on Egypt and the allied
Arab nations.
As the war intensified, the Liberty sent a request to the fleet headquarters requesting an escort. It was denied by Admiral William
Martin. The Liberty moved alone to a position in international waters about 13 miles from the shore at El Arish, then under furious
siege by the IDF.
On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move
the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.
A little after seven in the morning on June 8, Ennes entered the bridge of the Liberty to take the morning watch. Ennes was told
that an hour earlier a "flying boxcar" (later identified as a twin-engine Nord 2501 Noratlas) had flown over the ship at a low level.
Ennes says he noticed that the ship's American flag had become stained with soot and ordered a new flag run up the mast. The morning
was clear and calm, with a light breeze.
At 9 am, Ennes spotted another reconnaissance plane, which circled the Liberty. An hour later two Israeli fighter jets buzzed
the ship. Over the next four hours, Israeli planes flew over the Liberty five more times.
When the first fighter jet struck, a little before two in the afternoon, Ennes was scanning the skies from the starboard side
of the bridge, binoculars in his hands. A rocket hit the ship just below where Ennes was standing, the fragments shredded the men
closest to him.
After the explosion, Ennes noticed that he was the only man left standing. But he also had been hit by more than 20 shards of
shrapnel and the force of the blast had shattered his left leg. As he crawled into the pilothouse, a second fighter jet streaked
above them and unleashed its payload on the hobbled Liberty.
At that point, Ennes says the crew of the Liberty had no idea who was attacking them or why. For a few moments, they suspected
it might be the Soviets, after an officer mistakenly identified the fighters as MIG-15s. They knew that the Egyptian air force already
had been decimated by the Israelis. The idea that the Israelis might be attacking them didn't occur to them until one of the crew
spotted a Star of David on the wing of one of the French-built Mystere jets.
Ennes was finally taken below deck to a makeshift dressing station, with other wounded men. It was hardly a safe harbor. As Ennes
worried that his fractured leg might slice through his femoral artery leaving him to bleed to death, the Liberty was pummeled by
rockets, machine-gun fire and an Italian-made torpedo packed with 1,000-pounds of explosive.
After the attack ended, Ennes was approached by his friend Pat O'Malley, a junior officer, who had just sent a list of killed
and wounded to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. He got an immediate message back. "They said, 'Wounded in what action? Killed in what
action?'," O'Malley told Ennes. "They said it wasn't an 'action,' it was an accident. I'd like for them to come out here and see
the difference between an action and an accident. Stupid bastards."
The cover-up had begun.
***
The Pentagon lied to the public about the attack on the Liberty from the very beginning. In a decision personally approved by
the loathsome McNamara, the Pentagon denied to the press that the Liberty was an intelligence ship, referring to it instead as a
Technical Research ship, as if it were little more than a military version of Jacques Cousteau's Calypso.
The military press corps on the USS America, where most of the wounded sailors had been taken, were placed under extreme restrictions.
All of the stories filed from the carrier were first routed through the Pentagon for security clearance, objectionable material was
removed with barely a bleat of protest from the reporters or their publications.
Predictably, Israel's first response was to blame the victim, a tactic that has served them so well in the Palestinian situation.
First, the IDF alleged that it had asked the State Department and the Pentagon to identify any US ships in the area and was told
that there were none. Then the Israeli government charged that the Liberty failed to fly its flag and didn't respond to calls for
it to identify itself. The Israelis contended that they assumed the Liberty was an Egyptian supply ship called El Quseir, which,
even though it was a rusting transport ship then docked in Alexandria, the IDF said it suspected of shelling Israeli troops from
the sea. Under these circumstances, the Israeli's said they were justified in opening fire on the Liberty. The Israelis said that
they halted the attack almost immediately, when they realized their mistake.
"The Liberty contributed decisively toward its identification as an enemy ship," the IDF report concluded. This was a blatant
falsehood, since the Israelis had identified the Liberty at least six hours prior to the attack on the ship.
Even though the Pentagon knew better, it gave credence to the Israeli account by saying that perhaps the Liberty's flag had lain
limp on the flagpole in a windless sea. The Pentagon also suggested that the attack might have lasted less than 20 minutes.
After the initial battery of misinformation, the Pentagon imposed a news blackout on the Liberty disaster until after the completion
of a Court of Inquiry investigation.
The inquiry was headed by Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd. Kidd didn't have a free hand. He'd been instructed by Vice-Admiral McCain
to limit the damage to the Pentagon and to protect the reputation of Israel.
The Kidd interviewed the crew on June 14 and 15. The questioning was extremely circumscribed. According to Ennes, the investigators
"asked nothing that might be embarrassing to Israeland testimony that tended to embarrass Israel was covered with a 'Top Secret'
label, if it was accepted at all."
Ennes notes that even testimony by the Liberty's communications officers about the jamming of the ship's radios was classified
as "Top Secret." The reason? It proved that Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. "Here was strong evidence that the attack
was planned in advance and that our ship's identity was known to the attackers (for it its practically impossible to jam the radio
of a stranger), but this information was hushed up and no conclusions were drawn from it," Ennes writes.
Similarly, the Court of Inquiry deep-sixed testimony and affidavits regarding the flag-Ennes had ordered a crisp new one deployed
early on the morning of the attack. The investigators buried intercepts of conversations between IDF pilots identifying the ship
as flying an American flag.
It also refused to accept evidence about the IDF's use of napalm during the attacks and choose not to hear testimony regarding
the duration of the attacks and the fact that the US Navy failed to send planes to defend the ship.
"No one came to help us," said Dr. Richard F. Kiepfer, the Liberty's physician. "We were promised help, but no help came. The
Russians arrived before our own ships did. We asked for an escort before we ever came to the war zone and we were turned down."
None of this made its way into the 700-page Court of Inquiry report, which was completed within a couple of weeks and sent to
Admiral McCain in London for review.
McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who
found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.
Staring sent a letter to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy disavowing himself from the report. The JAG seemed to take Staring's
objections to heart. It prepared a summary for the Chief of Naval Operations that almost completely ignored the Kidd/McCain report.
Instead, it concluded:
that the Liberty was easily recognizable as an American naval vessel; that it's flag was fully deployed and flying in a moderate
breeze; that Israeli planes made at least eight reconnaissance flights at close range; the ship came under a prolonged attack from
Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats.
This succinct and largely accurate report was stamped Top Secret by Navy brass and stayed locked up for many years. But it was
seen by many in the Pentagon and some in the Oval Office. But here was enough grumbling about the way the Liberty incident had been
handled that LBJ summoned that old Washington fixer Clark Clifford to do damage control. It didn't take Clifford long to come up
with the official line: the Israelis simply had made a tragic mistake.
It turns out that the Admiral Kidd and Captain Ward Boston, the two investigating officers who prepared the original report for
Admiral McCain, both believed that the Israeli attack was intentional and sustained. In other words, the IDF knew that they were
striking an American spy ship and they wanted to sink it and kill as many sailors as possible. Why then did the Navy investigators
produce a sham report that concluded it was an accident?
Twenty-five years later we finally found out. In June of 2002, Captain Boston told the Navy Times: "Officers follow orders."
It gets worse. There's plenty of evidence that US intelligence agencies learned on June 7 that Israel intended to attack the Liberty
on the following day and that the strike had been personally ordered by Moshe Dayan.
As the attacks were going on, conversations between Israeli pilots were overheard by US Air Force officers in an EC121 surveillance
plane overhead. The spy plane was spotted by Israeli jets, which were given orders to shoot it down. The American plane narrowly
avoided the IDF missiles.
Initial reports on the incident prepared by the CIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and the National Security Agency all reached
similar conclusions.
A particularly damning report compiled by a CIA informant suggests that Israeli Defense minister Moshe Dayan personally ordered
the attack and wanted it to proceed until the Liberty was sunk and all on board killed. A heavily redacted version of the report
was released in 1977. It reads in part:
"[The source] said that Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the
action and said, 'This is pure murder.' One of the admirals who was present also disapproved of the action, and it was he who
ordered it stopped and not Dayan."
This amazing document generated little attention from the press and Dayan was never publicly questioned about his role in the
attack.
The analyses by the intelligence agencies are collected in a 1967 investigation by the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Two and half decades later that report remains classified. Why? A former committee staffer said: "So as not to embarrass Israel."
More proof came to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes
got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni
said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US
Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack."
He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.
***
How tightly does the Israeli lobby control the Hill? For the first time in history, an attack on an America ship was not subjected
to a public investigation by Congress. In 1980, Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater planned to open a senate hearing into the Liberty
affair. Then Jimmy Carter intervened by brokering a deal with Menachem Begin, where Israel agreed to pony up $6 million to pay for
damages to the ship. A State Department press release announced the payment said, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty."
It certainly was the last chapter for Adlai Stevenson. He ran for governor of Illinois the following year, where his less than
perfect record on Israel, and his unsettling questions about the Liberty affair, became an issue in the campaign. Big money flowed
into the coffers of his Republican opponent, Big Jim Thompson, and Stevenson went down to a narrow defeat.
But the book wasn't closed for the sailors either, of course. After a Newsweek story exposed the gist of what really happened
on that day in the Mediterranean, an enraged Admiral McCain placed all the sailors under a gag order. When one sailor told an officer
that he was having problems living with the cover-up, he was told: "Forget about it, that's an order."
The Navy went to bizarre lengths to keep the crew of the Liberty from telling what they knew. When gag orders didn't work, they
threatened sanctions. Ennes tells of the confinement and interrogation of two Liberty sailors that sounds like something right out
of the CIA's MK-Ultra program.
"In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily
guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital," Ennes writes. "For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections
of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock
only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer."
Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as
drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been
painted as anti-Semites.
In a recent column, Charley Reese describes just how mean-spirited and petty this campaign became. "When a small town in Wisconsin
decided to name its library in honor of the USS Liberty crewmen, a campaign claiming it was anti-Semitic was launched," writes Reese.
"And when the town went ahead, the U.S. government ordered no Navy personnel to attend, and sent no messages. This little library
was the first, and at the time the only, memorial to the men who died on the Liberty."
***
So why then did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
A few days before the Six Days War, Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban visited Washington to inform LBJ about the forthcoming
invasion. Johnson cautioned Eban that the US could not support such an attack.
It's possible, then, that the IDF assumed that the Liberty was spying on the Israeli war plans. Possible, but not likely. Despite
the official denials, as Andrew and Leslie Cockburn demonstrate in
Dangerous Liaison, at the
time of the Six Days War the US and Israel had developed a warm covert relationship. So closely were the two sides working that US
intelligence aid certainly helped secure Israel's devastating and swift victory. In fact, it's possible that the Liberty had been
sent to the region to spy for the IDF.
A somewhat more likely scenario holds that Moshe Dayan wanted to keep the lid on Israel's plan to breach the new cease-fire and
invade into Syria to seize the Golan.
It has also been suggested that Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty with the intent of pinning the blame on the Egyptians
and thus swinging public and political opinion in the United States solidly behind the Israelis. Of course, for this plan to work,
the Liberty had to be destroyed and its crew killed.
There's another factor. The Liberty was positioned just off the coast from the town of El Arish. In fact, Ennes and others had
used town's mosque tower to fix the location of the ship along the otherwise featureless desert shoreline. The IDF had seized El
Arish and had used the airport there as a prisoner of war camp. On the very day the Liberty was attacked, the IDF was in the process
of executing as many as 1,000 Palestinian and Egyptian POWs, a war crime that they surely wanted to conceal from prying eyes. According
to Gabriel Bron, now an Israeli reporter, who witnessed part of the massacre as a soldier: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered
to dig pits and then army police shot them to death."
The bigger question is why the US government would participate so enthusiastically in the cover-up of a war crime against its
own sailors. Well, the Pentagon has never been slow to hide its own incompetence. And there's plenty of that in the Liberty affair:
bungled communications, refusal to provide an escort, situating the defenseless Liberty too close to a raging battle, the inability
to intervene in the attack and the inexcusably long time it took to reach the battered ship and its wounded.
That's but par for the course. But something else was going on that would only come to light later. Through most of the 1960s,
the US congress had imposed a ban on the sale of arms to both Israel and Jordan. But at the time of the Liberty attack, the Pentagon
(and its allies in the White House and on the Hill) was seeking to have this proscription overturned. The top brass certainly knew
that any evidence of a deliberate attack on a US Navy ship by the IDF would scuttle their plans. So they hushed it up.
In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying
$600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become
the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft.
Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military
embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians
quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner.
Thus, does the legacy of Liberty live on, one raid after another.
"... 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.
This war is 18 years old. It's no longer a minor in the eyes of the law. It's old enough to
think for itself, to vote, to move out of the house and get it's own place. Afghanistan will
figure it out. Once we withdraw to allow Afghanistan to return to self-governance.
After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a "national
security threat" and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as
"terrorists" and refused to rule out military intervention.
One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it
seems.
Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be
expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.
Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and
even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country's left-leaning
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.
As Washington's rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately
beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning
inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region's few
remaining progressive governments.
These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of
Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing
dictatorships across the region.
Trump admin declares Nicaragua a 'national security
threat'
A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement
applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington's
target list: "These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in
Venezuela and Nicaragua ," Trump declared.
On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing
Nicaragua as an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring
a state of "national emergency" on the Central American country.
Trump's 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing
coup attempt in Nicaragua . The US government has funded and supported many of
the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and
cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.
The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In
December the US Congress approved
the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose
sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business
with Managua.
Trump's new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its
democratically elected government -- which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by
Washington -- as a supposedly violent and corrupt "regime."
This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which
designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.
Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic
sanctions. And Trump's renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on
Nicaragua.
The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media,
but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.
And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington's
hybrid warfare against Managua.
More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua
Voice of America (VOA), the US government's main foreign broadcasting service, noted that
the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.
Washington's ambassador to the Organization
of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, "The pressure against Nicaragua is
going to continue."
The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the
Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.
VOA stated clearly that "Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin
American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic
pressure on to bring about regime change."
This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related
sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.
And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a " more
comprehensive set of regulations ," strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.
Voice of America's report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more
US pressure against their country.
Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman
Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua's military in particular.
"The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that
the military will like act the military in Bolivia," Jagger said, referring to the military
officials who violently overthrew Bolivia's democratically elected president.
Many of these military leaders had been
trained at the US government's School of the Americas , a notorious base of subversion
dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with
reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to
carry out the putsch.
VOA added that "in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect
that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable
country."
VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director
of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is
supported by the US
government's
regime-change arm , the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US
economic war on his country, telling VOA, "There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua
and Bolivia] the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an
effect."
Courtney, who was described by VOA as an "expert on the electoral process," added, "If there
is a stick, there must also be a carrot." He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and
political pressure against Nicaragua's government.
These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an
act of war. Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif , has characterized US economic warfare "financial terrorism," explaining that
it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.
Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive
order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.
The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that
brings together numerous opposition groups , several of which are
also
funded by the US government's NED , welcomed the order.
Trump dubs drug cartels in
Mexico "terrorists," refuses to rule out drone strikes
While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela's governments is nothing new, Donald Trump
is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.
In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López
Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his
initials AMLO, is Mexico's first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a
progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and
even decriminalize drugs.
AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking
86 percent approval rating . And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to
combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.
"The neoliberal economic model has
been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," AMLO has declared. "The child
of neoliberalism is corruption."
When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador
announced the end to "the long night of neoliberalism."
AMLO's left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on
neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a
reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.
On November 27 -- a day after declaring Nicaragua a "national security threat" -- Trump
announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as "
terrorist organizations ."
Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them
with drones and things like that?" O'Reilly asked.
The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug
cartels in Mexico.
Trump's announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for
a meeting with the US State Department.
The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico
have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the
Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in
counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.
Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing
death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The
CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central
America.
These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed,
trained, and funded far-right Islamist
extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same
US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander
Omar al-Shishani
, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from
Washington when he was fighting against Russia.
The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunne r
and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to
cartels in Mexico.
Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration's designation
of cartels as terrorists, "They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their
national security ."
"Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in
Mexico?" Duarte asked.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to
demonize
AMLO , portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator
who is supposedly wrecking Mexico's economy.
Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The
Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate
Rebels:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OJyCHjxCEs
Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.
AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate
any discussion of coups.
"How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are," López Obrador tweeted on November
2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a
leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, "Now is different."
"Another coup d'état will now be allowed," he declared.
In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further
to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy
that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.
AMLO's government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela's leftist government,
throwing a wrench in Washington's efforts to impose right-wing activist
Juan Guaidó as coup leader.
AMLO has welcomed Ecuador's ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina's
left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the
presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4T0zbASfbA
In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico
for a historic visit.
Trump's Operation Condor 2.0
For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.
In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing
Venezuelans in Miami , Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an
hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.
"The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua
and in Cuba as well," he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in
heart of capitalism in the United States.
While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not
occupying its oil fields
), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.
During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered,
and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of
the US intelligence apparatus.
Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation
Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem
has only begun.
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
"... Pompeo is a rapture supremacist warmonger that is not good for anything. ..."
"... Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud. ..."
Furthermore, Hu had some particularly harsh words for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, labeling the Secretary of State a "troublesome"
figure in US-China relations and insisting that Pompeo "can no longer play the role of a top US diplomat between the two countries."
... ... ...
Beijing's attacks on the secretary of state come as Pompeo wrapped up a string of meetings in the Middle East with King Salman
of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince.
Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've
had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief
diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud.
Bolton is just Albright of different sex. The same aggressive stupidity.
Notable quotes:
"... Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob... ..."
"... How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate. ..."
"... Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity. ..."
"... Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela. ..."
"... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe. ..."
"... Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states. ..."
"... Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. ..."
"... The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more. ..."
"... At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia. ..."
"... Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington's far-sighted leaders. ..."
"... When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." ..."
"... For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob. ..."
Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob...
How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem
appropriate.
Since 9/11, Washington has been extraordinarily active militarily -- invading two nations, bombing and droning several others,
deploying special operations forces in yet more countries, and applying sanctions against many. Tragically, the threat of Islamist
violence and terrorism only have metastasized. Although Al Qaeda lost its effectiveness in directly plotting attacks, it continues
to inspire national offshoots. Moreover, while losing its physical "caliphate" the Islamic State added further terrorism to its portfolio.
Three successive administrations have ever more deeply ensnared the United States in the Middle East. War with Iran appears to
be frighteningly possible. Ever-wealthier allies are ever-more dependent on America. Russia is actively hostile to the United States
and Europe. Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears
convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity.
Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For
instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military
and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and
even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela.
U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws in the thinking of the informal policy collective which former Obama aide Ben
Rhodes dismissed as "The Blob." Perhaps no official better articulated The Blob's defective precepts than Madeleine Albright, United
Nations ambassador and Secretary of State.
First is overweening hubris. In 1998 Secretary of State Albright declared that
"If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than
other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson
administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's
Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against
Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with
Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.
U.S. officials rarely were prepared for events that occurred in the next week or month, let alone years later. Americans did no
better than the French in Vietnam. Americans managed events in Africa no better than the British, French, and Portuguese colonial
overlords. Washington made more than its share of bad, even awful decisions in dealing with other nations around the globe.
Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never
passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if
outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those
most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon
of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states.
The U.S. record since September 11 has been uniquely counterproductive. Rather than minimize hostility toward America, Washington
adopted a policy -- highlighted by launching new wars, killing more civilians, and ravaging additional societies -- guaranteed to
create enemies, exacerbate radicalism, and spread terrorism. Blowback is everywhere. Among the worst examples: Iraqi insurgents mutated
into ISIS, which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism.
Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to
make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. When queried 1996 about her justification for sanctions against Iraq which had
killed a half million babies -- notably, she did not dispute the accuracy of that estimate -- she responded that "I think this is
a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Exactly who "we" were she did not say. Most likely she meant
those Americans admitted to the foreign policy priesthood, empowered to make foreign policy and take the practical steps necessary
to enforce it. (She later stated of her reply: "I never should have made it. It was stupid." It was, but it reflected her mindset.)
In any normal country, such a claim would be shocking -- a few people sitting in another capital deciding who lived and died.
Foreign elites, a world away from the hardship that they imposed, deciding the value of those dying versus the purported interests
being promoted. Those paying the price had no voice in the decision, no way to hold their persecutors accountable.
The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government.
This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the
full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone
campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious
hypocrisy and bias, and more.
This mindset is reinforced by contempt toward even those being aided by Washington. Although American diplomats had termed the
Kosovo Liberation Army as "terrorist," the Clinton Administration decided to use the growing insurgency as an opportunity to expand
Washington's influence. At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state
could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington
expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against
the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.
However, initially the KLA, determined on independence, refused to sign Albright's agreement. She exploded. One of her officials
anonymously complained: "Here is the greatest nation on earth pleading with some nothingballs to do something entirely in their own
interest -- which is to say yes to an interim agreement -- and they stiff us." Someone described as "a close associate" observed:
"She is so stung by what happened. She's angry at everyone -- the Serbs, the Albanians and NATO." For Albright, the determination
of others to achieve their own goals, even at risk to their lives, was an insult to America and her.
Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more
than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established
by Washington's far-sighted leaders.
As Albright famously asked Colin Powell in 1992:
"What's the use of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" To her, American military personnel
apparently were but gambit pawns in a global chess game, to be sacrificed for the interest and convenience of those playing. No
wonder then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell's reaction stated in his autobiography was: "I thought I would
have an aneurysm."
When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking
that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." Although sixty-five years had passed, she
admitted that "my mindset is Munich," a unique circumstance and threat without even plausible parallel today.
Such a philosophy explains a 1997 comment by a cabinet member, likely Albright, to General Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out
Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s
fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?" He responded sure, as soon as she qualified
to fly the plane.
For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash
murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal
of Albright and her peers in The Blob.
Anyone of these comments could be dismissed as a careless aside. Taken together, however, they reflect an attitude dangerous for
Americans and foreigners alike. Unfortunately, the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy suggest that this mindset is not limited to any
one person. Any president serious about taking a new foreign-policy direction must do more than drain the swamp. He or she must sideline
The Blob.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
"... "The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan' investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery. ..."
"... "The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike.' ..."
"... But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.) ..."
"... "The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served the rebels well. ..."
"It has been amusing to watch the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets express their dismay over the rise and
spread of 'fake news.' These publications take it as an obvious truth that what they provide is straightforward, unbiased, fact-based
reporting. They do offer such news, but they also provide a steady flow of their own varied forms of fake news, often by disseminating
false or misleading information supplied to them by the national security state, other branches of government, and sites of corporate
power.
"An important form of mainstream media fake news is that which is presented while suppressing information that calls the preferred
news into question. [ ]
"The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement
with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa
Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the
uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission
to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan'
investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times
and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form
of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery.
"The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda
effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity
called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian
propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance
toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions
of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to
your claims? Take a hike.'
But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon
or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.)
"On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, which will supposedly
allow the United States to more effectively combat foreign (namely Russian and Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will
encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts, and provide funding to non-government entities to help in this enterprise.
It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and shares the spirit of the listing of two hundred
tools of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. (Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list.)
Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, undoubtedly influenced by their fears of Russian-based fake
news and propaganda. But they may yet take notice, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their
own notions of fake news and propaganda.
"The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically
clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and
other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did
not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served
the rebels well.
"But the mainstream media never ask cui bono? in cases like this. In 2013, a similar charge against Assad, which brought the
United States to the brink of a full-scale bombing war in Syria, turned out to be a false flag operation, and some authorities
believe the current case is equally problematic. Nevertheless, Trump moved quickly (and illegally), dealing a blow to any further
rapprochement between the United States and Russia. The CIA, the Pentagon, leading Democrats, and the rest of the war party had
won an important skirmish in the struggle over permanent war."
Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917–2017
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
" U.S. President Trump Has Caught 'The Flu' | Main October 03, 2020 Is The War Over Nagorno-Karabakh Already At A Stalemate?
Semih Terzi, a general within the Turkish army, was executed on the night of the 2016 Turkish coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (Photo via the stockholmcf) Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English Friday 31 July 2020 Text size A A A
He was correct. General Butler could have given notorious gangsters such as Al Capone a few lessons in how to run a business empire. Then in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made it clear who had the real power inside Washington in a farewell address he gave to the American public. Eisenhower issued a stark warning on the dangers of the MIC posed to humanity.
Praetorian Guard which is today's version of the Military-Industrial Complex. The political and industrial heavyweights and its intelligence agencies select the best two candidates from the only two political parties who are bought and paid for by corporate and political interests make the important decisions. The Praetorian Guard (who was the emperor's private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the Military-Industrial Complex) had dominated the election process for the next century or so resulting in targeted assassinations of several emperors they did not want in power before Rome's collapse. They were assassinations and attempted assassinations on US presidents resulting in four deaths, the most notable assassination in the 20th century was President John F. Kennedy who wanted to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces" gave a speech on April 27th, 1961 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, many believe, including myself, that it was the speech that eventually got him killed:
