Helmut Kohl’s Death Reminds us of NATO’s Uselessness

A while back around September, I started to write about why I agreed with those individuals that considered, or expressed the view that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was obsolete.  However, I refrained after reading other people expressing a historical viewpoint that was similar to mine and I did not want to just throw up more words on the same topic just in a different sequence and syntax of word usage.  But I have decided to revisit this topic upon the passing of former Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl.

If we walk back in time to 1989, right before the fall of the Berlin wall, we would be able to see that the issues that concerned the western political establishment regarding German re-unification are similar in structure and content to those made in contradiction of the utility of NATO some 30 years later. What is going to happen to the stability of Europe that has been maintained ever since the end of the cold-war? Could and will Gorbachev (easily synonymous with Putin) accept the end of East Germany (soviet tanks were there at the time)?  What will happen to the Eastern borders of Europe (especially Poland in 1989 ironically where NATO is conducting war games currently)?

As then, these issues and questions persist and frequently brought up by pro-Hillary Clinton progressive Neoliberal NATO-crats and folks like Sen. John McCain who recurrently speaks out openly to convict any effort to normalization US and EU relations with Russia (Putin). This is done any time they get, like a talentless rapper who hypes the real star on stage, they hype-up the fake news that presents Russia being a military threat in Eastern Europe (and anywhere else if the can - see Syria). Seems some NATO or Brussel’s big wheel (Secretary-General Jens Stoltenber & German DM Ursulla von der Leyen) comes out of the back room every day to try and show how much they hate Russia over the next man or woman also.

Once upon a time NATO was simply a treaty designed to keep an occupying US army on European soil. Now it is just an outdated means of increasing US influence more so than being able to provide any real security anywhere. Basically, it is just a cash cow that seeks ways to justify immense military spending over the delusion America and European hallucination that we are perpetually on the brink of war with Russia, as well as a repurposed weapon of global neocolonialism and the tool of choice for regime change and national building. Thus, it’s clear that many have a serious interest in seeing the status quo (NATO) continue.

Dr. Kohl’s death is a reminder of this and that diplomacy is a skill set that is mandatory if peace and not war is truly the desired outcome for all conflicts. We must recall that the French said Kohl’s plan for German reunification was out of the question and there was a lot of resistance to the idea of a united Germany in general. Most (France and the UK) felt it would change the balance of the EU forever and it did. Not to mention there was the old axiom - NATO was designed to keep the Russians out, the US military machine in Europe and the Germans down. Making one Germany destroyed all three of these prospects. Moreover, Kohl’s success destroyed the justification for the incessant funding of the NATO war machine.

Probably the best detailed account of what Dr. Kohl had to deal with is described in Mitterrand, the End of the Cold War, and German Unification by Frédéric Bozo. Bozo describes how it only took Kohl less than a month to pre-empt all concerns from France, the U.K. and the United States when he came up with a 10-point plan to fast-track German unification. Of all his actions, his pledge to recognize the post-war German-Polish border (Oder-Neisse line) and his promise to pay for the cost of the Soviet troop withdrawal from East Germany were both shrewd and savvy and led to the end of the cold war. One could also posit that the post-Cold War reconfiguration of NATO that occurred after Kohl’s unification of Germany was the start of the post WWII uselessness of NATO.
The fall of the Berlin wall was then followed by Gorbachev dissolving the Warsaw Pact and relinquishing control over all the Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries. This should have been the end of NATO since it was FORMED and ESTABLISHED to serve as a  cooperative security peacetime military alliance against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Nations. Kohl’s efforts also included getting the U.S. to promise that we would never expand NATO further eastward if he didn’t object to East Germany’s becoming a member of NATO.

Given the history, hard not to disagree but Donald Trump or anyone else as it regards NATO usefulness. Fact is that when the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union dissolved, the reason for the formation and maintenance of NATO ended too. If you want to keep it real, NATO was never capable of defending Europe without the US and its mission still hasn’t evolved to keep up with threat of international terrorism and combatting the Islamic State. Problem is when you openly say such, you end up hurting the feelings of the D.C. neoliberal establishment war machine profiteer cartel. Cats the likes of Will Marshall, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Stephen Hadley who see NATO to extend their crony capitalistic ways. These are the folk who are the maddest when Trump and others point out that NATO freeloader nations need to “pay up or get out.”
Yes, Kohl reminds me of how archaic and old-fashined and unserviceable NATO is. Nations like Albania, Croatia Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia  are all member states now (although the U.S. promised Gorbachev that NATO would not encroach upon Russia’s borders). It is easy to see that in 2017 it has a single purpose: to serve as bait to start a world war with Russia.

Instead of heeding the wisdom of former statesmen before Kohl like Sen. Robert A. Taft in 1949 or President Eisenhower’s via his prophetic cautioning in 1961 that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," the west has yet to objectively examine the utility of NATO – especially if the desire is peaceful co-existence globally. Taft understood all of this and saw the formation of NATO, regardless of what was said, as “an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia,” saying that he believed “such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace. A third world war would be the greatest tragedy the world has ever suffered.” True, the UN Charter supposedly only allows nations to use force only in self-defense when under threat of imminent attack, but it seems that NATO knowing it is no longer valid, is just itching to provoke a fight with Putin, against reason and even to the detriment of humanity.

Read More

The Snap, Crackle & Pop of Susan Rice

Now I don’t watch the Sunday network talk shows, but I do get to read the transcripts.  I was sent one via email from a friend of mine on Susan Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show hosted by Former Bill Clinton Press Secretary George Stephanopoulos.  My friend was cracking up and couldn’t stop laughing. Now for the record I like Susan Rice, I may not agree with her often, but I do like her (nothing like a smart black woman to make me smile). I digress. Nonetheless, it was obvious the powers that be on the mainstream media wanted or needed to get former Ambassador Susan Rice into the collective unconscious of the public left.

From reading the transcript, the first thing that jumped out was that Stephanopoulos was tossing former Ambassador Rice under hand softball pitches or even worse, setting the ball on the T for her to hit without much difficulty. The set up (as has been the case since the presidential primary), is to first use a few of Trump tweets like they were chum (fish parts, bone and blood) to attract the anger and lure Ambassador Rice like a shark to the Trump smell. This is followed by the introduction of the Great White or Tiger Shark they are baiting (chumming) for: this time it being the person who served as national security adviser and UN ambassador under President Obama. His first question, referring to the commixture of tweets pertained to how alarmed should we be because of the recent terrorist attacks in London? Rice gave the basic scripted Benghazi type answer: “We need to remain very focused on dealing with that threat. But at the same time, we need to recognize that there will be homegrown extremists in all our countries. And there is no easy way to predict and defeat every single one of them.” 

Stephanopoulos’s next question was pure chum. "You heard the president say that travel ban would bring an extra level of safety. Your response?”

RICE: “Well, George, there's really no evidence to suggest that by banning Muslims or banning Muslims from a particular set of six countries that we would make ours here in the United States safer. And that's, I believe, one of the major reasons why the courts thus far have been very skeptical of the travel ban. Moreover, I think there's a very real risk that by stigmatizing and isolating Muslims from particular countries and Muslims in general that we alienate the very communities here in the United States whose cooperation we most need to detect and prevent these homegrown extremists from being able to carry out the attacks.”

Yes, that is correct, targeting the same predominantly Muslim nations Obama did in 2011 would only result in the “real risk that by stigmatizing and isolating Muslims from particular countries and Muslims in general that we alienate the very communities here in the United States.” It would be easy to conclude then that Obama’s slowing down of refugees and the level of Iraqi resettlement, would have resulted in the same. Now both programs are different, but it is the logic (or illogic) that sticks out as peculiar.

His next line of questioning briefly (and I mean briefly) addressed leaks.  From reading the transcript and lack of follow-up by Stephanopoulos it was clear he did not want to accidently ask her about possible leaks and unmasking by Obama administration appointees so he deftly moved to the next subject which was her critique of President Trump published in The New York Times. Stephanopoulos stated, “… one of the things you wrote is that Russia has been a big winner under President Trump. How so?”

RICE: "Well, George, the United States has been the leader of the world because the world trusts and respects us, because we have an unprecedented network of alliances with close partners that work with us, whether it's to defeat ISIS, whether it's to deal with a threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, or to go after challenges of a new sort like pandemic disease or climate change. We need these partners. And when we alienate our western allies, when the president went to NATO and failed to reaffirm, as every president has since 1948, that we're committed and remain committed to the defense of our NATO partners, he sent shockwaves through Europe. And that is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. Because Putin's interests, as he reaffirmed just on Friday, is to see NATO weakened and ultimately destroyed. And when the United States, the most important player in NATO, casts doubt about our commitment to that vital alliance, it undermines our security. It undermines the security of our closest allies. And it's a big win for Vladimir Putin.”

Now what is missing from this response you might ask? For starters, it is questionable if the prior administration tried to or wanted to go after ISIS. Obama did call them the JV team and blamed everyone in the universe (Bush, the second amendment & even global warming) for his not recognizing them as a threat.  In fact, Obama was occupied with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden so much so that he basically breast fed ISIS into existence with his policy of unilateral invasion of Libya under the dress of NATO. Which reminds us of how poorly he and Rice responded to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Moreover, the concept that Iran as a major nuclear threat is also laughable given that they are still on the path and the deal negotiated by team Obama does nothing to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power. Not to mention the illegal and off the record $1.7 billion payment to Iran in 2016 made entirely in cash, with non-U.S. currency.

When asked about President Putin, Rice quickly responded that “he's lying” and that "The reality is, …the Russian government, at the highest levels, was behind the very unprecedented effort to meddle in our 2016 presidential election.” Continuing she said, “Russia is an adversary. Russia not only has invaded a sovereign country and annexed part of it in Ukraine and Crimea [After Obama orchestrated coup]. It's not only in cahoots with a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons [yet to be proven], it has interfered directly and deliberately at the direction of the highest levels of its government in our democratic process…That is a threat to the integrity of our democracy. That's a threat to our country on a bipartisan basis. And we need to hold Russia accountable.”

Who else to know if someone is lying than the always honest Susan Rice who had the gumption to go on national television and lie to hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens and people around the globe when on one news show she said: “Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is at present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.…We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

Again Stephanopoulos let her hit the pitch right up the middle of the field without making a play on the ball. Without a transition, it was easy for him too move to the next point of liberal discontent – when he asked, “Would it have been appropriate for Jared Kushner to have a back-channel during the transition? Your successor, General McMaster, has suggested there's nothing wrong with it.”

RICE: "Well, George, I think, these reports, if accurate, are concerning, not just because of communication between the Trump transition and the Russian government, and we do have communications between transition teams and foreign governments, but rarely with adversaries like the Russians, and rarely with the frequency that we have seen. But what I found most concerning about that report, which, if true, is that Jared Kushner suggested to the Russian ambassador that they communicate using Russian communications in a Russian diplomatic facility to hide their conversation from the United States government. That's extraordinary, if not mind-boggling from the point of view of a national security professional. I have worked in this field for 25 years. And I have never heard of such a thing. The United States -- and from one administration to the next -- has one government, one president at a time. And we worked very hard to do a professional and effective handoff. A seamless one. We worked very hard in this transition to accomplish that and to do so transparently.”

This was probably the most historically inaccurate and artfully mendacious crock of Buffalo feces of the entire interview. First communication alone is not as heinous as Rice makes it out to regardless of who is President or what country it is, even Russia. And the part about advisories is either the result of a historically ill-informed person or a calculated lie.

After the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, his future national security adviser Henry Kissinger set up a back-channel to contact and communicate with the Soviet leadership via a known KGB operative named Boris Sedov, whom Kissinger had come to know from interactions at Harvard. Even before Nixon, FDR’s used a long time fried Harry Hopkins as a go between the U.S., U.K. and Stalin. Only difference was that Roosevelt was President at the time. Then there’s Obama’s backchannel fiasco with Iran which occurred in 2008 while he was running for president in which prior to even being elected, his staff established secret communications with the Iranian leadership using William Miller to relay how they planned to interact with Iran if Obama was elected.

I don’t know if Rice believes what she says in interviews or rather if she just like hearing herself talk. One thing for certain is that she has a short memory span and here knowledge of history is suspect or intentionally confined. I mean, the Obama administration and the democrats went from loving Russia to hating Russia and calling the nation the greatest threat in the world when just a little while back it wasn't.

Read More

Next Up, The Netherlands and France

I would love to be a fly on the wall at Davos. I can only imagine the panic filled discussions being had over not just Brexit, but also the defeat of Hillary Clinton.  All of their plutocratic wealth accumulation schemes at the expense of the common person, and neoliberal plans of incessant domination as of now, look for them to be a giant ice cream cone that is melting before their eyes and in their hands due to the heat of populism. Even when they leave their luxurious surroundings in the snow-peaked Swiss Alps at the annual World Economic Forum, they will continue to have nightmares and dreams of what could have been because of what is up next at the plate.

Within the next 8 weeks the Dutch general election will happen on March 15. As it stands, the current front runner and favorite is the leader and founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders. The PVV has been described as being far-right and anti-Islam with Wilder himself recently being tried (for hate speech) in court, accused of inciting hatred against Moroccans. His crime was asking a crowed at a rally in 2014 if they wanted “fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands”. After the throng began to shout “fewer, fewer,” he responded: “We’re going to organize that.” Although the resulting verdict found Wilders guilty of inciting discrimination, his views and support has only grown. Like Trump, he is seen as an anti-establishment firebrand who speaks the language of the people and tells it like it is.

Pundits have projected that the PVV could win as many as 35 seats this year which would make it the majority power in the 150-seat Dutch parliament. Present policy positions presented by the PVV include but are not limited to closing down all Islamic schools and mosques, shutting down the borders, a complete ban on migrants from Islamic nation states, banning the Koran and calling for a referendum on Dutch EU membership in a hope to pull the Netherlands out of the 28-nation institute, should he become prime minister. Thus it is not improbable that the Christian Wilders, with his promise to start a complete "de-Islamification" of the Netherlands, could become the country's next Prime Minister.

After the Dutch elections, in April and May the first and second rounds of the French presidential elections will take place, and like the Netherlands, the far-right has a strong chance of winning. As it stands, Marine Le Pen of the National Front is just a few points ahead of her conservative rival and former front-runner François Fillon of Les Républicains party based on recent surveys conducted by Ipsos Sopra Steria for Sciences Po University Research Centre (Cevipof) and Le Monde. In the past French voters have supported the National Front to the runoff stage of elections; however this was when the current candidate’s father was running. This time it will be after both the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote. Like Obama, the French reflect a similar level of disappointment for both François Hollande and his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy. Trump’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric is similar to the position of Le Pen regarding the European Union trying to establish a free-trade zone across Europe and North America that would be called the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA).

Like Trump and Wilders, Le Pen boasts a similar form of political nationalism. She has been extremely critical of the migration policy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and has ceaselessly indicated her desire, being labeled a Eurosceptic, to take France out of the EU and/or euro seeing she has pledged to hold a referendum on France’s membership in the organization. In addition she holds views some have described as being anti-Islam. For example, she believes that the children of illegal immigrants should not have access to French public schools. In concert with president Trump, she is for working closer with Russian President Putin and sees the utility of NATO as being questionable. In one recent interview with the BBC she was quoted as stating, “NATO continues to exist even though the danger for which it was created no longer exists.”

Whatever the result, a Le Pen win is set to usher in a new age of right-wing politics for France after decades of centrism. With the UK removed, along with Germany there remains only France to hold the top positions of power in the EU as nation states. And for this to continue, Le Pen and her far-right party would have to fall in defeat to her center-right opponent. If not a Le Pen victory could mean the end of Europe as we know it.

If France’s Marine Le Pen and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders were to become president and Prime Minister of their respective nations, the impact of their victories would likely be felt far beyond Europe, especially with elections on the horizon in Germany. Not only could it result in a domino-effect of Brexit-style referendums in other member nations, it may entrench the observation that globally in the west, the mistrust of established corporate, media and political elites will continue to display itself in a tug of war between populist and establishment forces. Also, it will signal that more policies that are anti mass immigration, anti-austerity and anti-EU may not be too far behind.

Neoliberal detractors may say that politicians like Trump, Le Pen and Wilders are exploiting a populist agenda by capitalizing on irrational beliefs and views. Unfortunately the reality is that people are sick and tired of not having their political, or any interest represented by the contemporary status quo and feel they are not being represented by, or benefiting from current dysfunctional,neoliberal or neoconservative mainstream policies.  They have seen what has happened in Greece and the impact that mass immigration and migration policies can have on a nation’s security and serenity.  They are seeing increasing levels of terrorism once where they had not and are experiencing little and little less in their wallets and purses to even meet their basic needs. Even more sad and offensive is that mainstream politicians and most journalist not only are not trying to understand these phenomena but rather ignoring them as if a passing fad.

So if the Netherlands and France are next to follow Trump and Brexit, it could significantly damage the dream of a single unified shared economy for the Eurozone and significantly weaken the European Union as a world power and more importantly, signal that populist movements will continue to cultivate in Europe and the progressive left and other traditional supporters of neoliberalism will remain behind the curve or on the outside looking in.

Read More

Obama’s Sherman Moment

Just one day after President Barack Obama moved to expel thirty-five Russian expatriates, Russian President Vladimir Putin took the high road and turned the other cheek – an action that the Obama Administration surely did not anticipate and likely considered equally embarrassing.  I suspect as others have also noted, that this was an attempt on Obama’s behalf to close down the warming of relations with Russia that the incoming President Elect has signaled he was willing to attempt.  Yes, this was indeed the ultimate F### you to the outgoing President. I am sure they will try to spin this in a positive.  Maybe they will say Putin was wrong so he had no reason to capitulate in response, that there is no way he can retaliate (both of which are false) or make up new evidence of Russian hacking the U.S. to gather more anti-Russian sentiment.

Anyone with common sense can conclude that this isn’t about Russia or even the election, but rather Obama and the failed policy purported by the Democratic left in America. As a lame duck, President Obama has placed the interest of the failing Democratic Party over the national security interest of the American people.  His aversion for Donald Trump has led him to project and use the historical trained fear produced in the American people for decades to hate Russia – like the name of one of my favorite musical groups, a Cheap Trick. In a few months the Democratic Party and mainstream East coast media has turned liberal progressives into neocon war hawks.

Hilarity right? This re-invigorated blame-Russia ruse seemed to start a few years ago when Putin got hip to Obama’s game after the February 2014 coup to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. For some reason or another, the cat folk though was smart as sh## (Obama) didn’t seem to recall that this was not the Yeltsin era, or that since then, Putin has managed to beat Obama to the punch in all of his foreign policy efforts like a chess grand master playing a beginner.

It was a foreign policy coup.  Especially when you add to the calculus the just negotiated Turkey-Russia cease-fire agreement in Syria which can be stated is a consequence of Putin’s leadership and involvement in the nation over the past year (an act that has successfully neutered American neo-liberal policy goals in their call for Assad to leave office). This is amazing seeing all of this has occurred after Erdogan’s government shot down a Russian jet and years after Obama telling Medvedev on an open mic in 2012 that he would work more openly with Russia as a partner rather than a nemesis. Add to this Russia’s improved relationship with Turkey, questions now come to the forefront regarding NATO’s second largest Army coming under a significant level of influence under Putin and concerns about deteriorating relations between Turkey and the U.S. One could go further and even include this past December when Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, while in Bahrain stating that the U.S. had reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses (you can see a lot of Russia with this).

It is strange that Obama is doing all of this as he prepares to leave the Whitehouse. The Obama administration on the surface seems to be trying to provoke a direct confrontation with Putin while at the same time create a new cold-war foreign policy crisis for President-elect Donald Trump to deal with the minute he assumes the office of presidency. Among other things, he has also stepped up arming and funding jihadist in Syria and has ratchetted up tensions with Putin not only in Syria, but also on his boarders by installing anti-ballistic missiles in Romania, Poland, and other nations (supposedly to protect Europe against Iranian missiles). Now to top it off, he has contrived fake Russian hacking. One sad consequence is that the Obama Administrations failure to find any solution to what is happening in Syria, diplomatic or otherwise, and how to defeat the Islamic State has resulted in historic U.S. allies in the region scratching their heads in confusion. Namely what is the position of the U.S.? What leverage if any do they have in the region and will they protect their interests in the region and how?

Even with these actions, the report the administration released detailing how the alleged hack occurred was not detailed at all. There was no mention of the fact that John Podesta was his own worse cyber enemy. It doesn’t really fall into the category of hacking when you email your passwords around, lose a cell phone or respond to a password phishing email even a 6th graders known not to open. From what I read, most of the “detailed” report produced by the FBI/DHS talked about how cats can protect themselves from malware but little if anything about proving that the Russians were the source of the DNC or Podesta email leaks. Really it was replete of circumstantial evidence and oblique hints (innuendo).

Although the President promised to consult and work with Congress on this issue, he has not nor did he present them with a detailed report PROVIDING PROOF that the Russians did it or that the motive was to elect Donald Trump. It is easy to say that a car jacker stole your car for money, but to say why he needed the money and what the money would have been used for is another matter. Thus to state unequivocally that this Russian cyber hacking attempt was aimed at the U.S. presidential election to elect Trump by talking about hacking infrastructure in an effort to help prevent more hacking in the future does not suffice as PROOF.

Jerry Gamblin said“the Grizzly Steppe data it is disjointed, ambiguous and really doesn’t provide any actionable data for most companies.” Cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr wrote: “It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercialcybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.” Errata Security CEO RobGraham pointed out that, one of the signatures detects the presence of "PAS TOOL WEB KIT," a tool that's widely used by literally hundreds, and possibly thousands, of hackers in Russia and Ukraine, most of whom are otherwise unaffiliated and have no connection to the Russian government. Lastly to quote Robert M. Lee, CEO and Founder of the critical infrastructure cyber security company Dragos stated “There is no mention of the focus of attribution in any of the White House’s statements.” In simple terms, the white house is guessing and giving an opinion that can’t even point directly to the Russian government.

Some have suggested (which I agree with) that Obama is trying to embarrass Trump and that he is trying to provoke the President elect into a cyber war with Russia (which I disagree with). However, Putin’s response demonstrates that Obama's new sanctions and expulsions is a reflection of his weakness in foreign policy. This sentiment was echoed in the comments made by Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman  Maria Zakharova when she said, “Obama and his illiterate foreign policy team” was just a bunch of “losers, angry and shallow-brained.”

Democrats are now in unfamiliar water – taking the same policy positions regarding Russia as their alter-ego Republicans. This is comical by itself, complaining about authoritarian executive leadership abroad when they sponsor and support similar leadership in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  Plus there is the added discord at home post-election which demonstrated how the Democrats incessant use and presentation of identity politics obviated the largest voting bloc in America from its constituency - working-class whites. Yes Obama can see the writing on the wall and has decided to resort to past lessons of history using the example of General William Tecumseh Sherman scorched earth/slash and burn approach. Yep, Obama trying to hem in Trump, and burn all of America in the process just to throw shade.

Read More

Assad, Trump, Putin and Rethinking Syria

With sixty-five days remaining before President Elect Donald Trump takes office, one of the more pressing foreign policy concerns, even from his mouth involves ISIS and Syria.  In particular given the international disquiet and precarious uncertainty member states of the European Union have displayed before and after his election.

Prior to the U.S. completion of the primary election, the EU and Obama administration were not completely inagreement on how to address Syria or ISIS.  On the one hand the Obama Administration only claim of success was the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons capability, which was achieved mainly because of the influence of Russia.  However, outside of this, the Obama administration has been unable to contain the Syrian crisis and has resulted in a mass exodus of refugees into surrounding nation and Europe.

Consequently the EU is just as confused as the present administration and is all over the place with respect to any consistent policy options pertaining to Syria as one would expect with 28 different member states. Instead of embracing Putin, the EU adopted the position of President Obama from 2011 and the leaders of some of the nations, including Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany repeated verbatim that Assad must go.

Instead of working with Putin to attempt to destroy a common foe, the Obama administration has resulted to the childish action of name calling as opposed to formulating a geopolitical policy to address ISIS.  In one such instance, Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN accused Russia of supporting “barbarism” upon which she and representatives to the UN from the UK and France walked out right when the Syrian representative was to address the council. Even when Obama decided to work with Putin concerning a ceasefire in Aleppo, he was unable to bring fellow NATO member Turkey along, who believes that such would end in a redrawing of the battlefield of Syria in favor of Bashar Assad’s regime and the Kurd’s.

Beyond the Islamic State group and al-Qaida, the citizens of the EU are more concerned with the massive influx of immigrants and a succession of terror attacks in France, Belgium and Germany more than Assad. Trump’s approach is more in line with the citizens of the EU and US than the leadership of the US and EU independent nations.

Trump’s election will obviously take U.S. Syrian foreign policy in a direction in contrast to the EU and President Obama. His approach seems to be more political and diplomatic including working with Putin and Assad if his views on regime change are sincere. Trump has said the U.S. will close its borders to refugees from the Syrian civil war which is in diametric opposition to the stance taken by Merkel.  It is also understood from his statements made during the second presidential debate that his focus would be on defeating the Islamic State (IS) as opposed to going against Russia or Assad, or seeking regime change in Syria.

He has also openly stated he viewed Putin as a good leader and a person he could work with looking for peace and cooperation as opposed to war and animosity.  Similarly, he has offered a not too positive picture of the Saudi’s and NATO. One reason for this is that during the republican primary and general election Trump placed domestic policy as his most unyielding concern. 

Just this past week Trump indicated that he would stop supplying weapons to anti-Assad forces on the ground. This is consistent with some of his past statements in which he has been quoted as saying “My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned withSyria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, isaligned with Syria... Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have noidea who these people are.” He has even warned that if the US attacks Assad, “we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.”

All of this is speculation with the exception of the President Elect’s words and his media described “isolationism.”  We still have to wait for him to put together his administration and name a secretary of state. What is certain is that the back and forth that pigeon-holed the Obama Administration, his Department of State, the Pentagon and CIA on ISIS and regime change in Syria are over.

Read More

Obama's Failed Putsch

A coup is a sudden and violent, seizure of power from a government. On occasion it has also been called a putsch.  A little more than two months ago there was such a violent attempt to overthrow the government in the nation of Turkey.  I heard about and read of several theories regarding the effort ranging from it being a theatrical production of Erdogan to a plan of secular aspects of the nation’s body politic as formalized via the exiled leadership of the Turkish preacher, former imam Muhammed Fethullah Gülen. However, none of these are even able to approach being reasonable and logical in my estimation, notwithstanding they are somewhat plausible.

If you asked me, I would say it was planned by the Obama Administration in concert with NATO and implemented in the splendid tradition of the standard U.S. ‘overthrow a democratically elected leader’ playbook under the direction of the C.I.A. of course.  And no, I have no explicit proof of this but history does support the tenable likelihood that I may be right and such is not farfetched at all.

Although I could give numerous examples, I would prefer to remind the reader of what we saw after World War II. After the defeat of Japan in 1945 when it was forced to leave Indochina. At the same time a movement was underway to free peasants in the region was taking off being led by Ho Chi Minh. Although US globalist history will claim that this was a communist led effort, the facts were that it was a grass roots operation.

As Howard Zinn noted, Minh, after he led the overthrew the Japanese, he established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a declaration of independence based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen.  It was the first time ever Vietnam was free from foreign rule (and nearly foreign occupation) in history - however the West wasn’t about to let this happen. At the time, the English was occupying South Vietnam, which they eventually returned to the French. Concurrently, Nationalist China under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek controlled the northern part of Indochina, which the U.S. persuaded them to return it to the French.

To make a long story short, the U.S. did all it could to prevent Minh’s desire of Vietnam unification and created South Vietnam as an American protectorate making Saigon as head of the government under the rule of a former Vietnamese official living in New Jersey named Ngo Dinh Diem. Unfortunately Diem’s rule was unpopular not to mention he was a Catholic in a country where most were Buddhists. And for that extra icing on the cake, he imprisoned all who criticized his administration.

In 1961 Kennedy became president and continued the policies of Truman and Eisenhower in the region. But by 1963 Diem had become even more autocratic and when a Buddhist monk set himself afire in Saigon to protest the artificially established U.S. government, it led to more monks committing suicide by fire to demonstrate their opposition to the government. With the approval and permission of the U.S. by Kennedy, American Ambassador Henry- Cabot Lodge and a State Department official named Roger Hilsman, a group of Vietnamese generals began plotting a coup to overthrow Diem. The result was the assassination of Diem and his brother.

Now many may not see the similarities but for the purpose of brevity I will explain.  The manner in which the opportunity arose in Vietnam for the U.S. to take advantage of a leader, whom in this case they selected and supported until his over-the-top autocratic rule and push for control was perceived as unacceptable by his citizenry, is ironically similar to the comportment of the citizens of Turkey with respect to Erdogan, albeit he was not handpicked by the U.S. he had been working on behalf (to what extent) of the military and geopolitical interest of the U.S., Europe and NATO.

Historically, when democratically elected governments (as with the case of Iran in 1953) or puppet autocratic states (as in Vietnam) and even states in between (as in present day Turkey and the Ukraine), the US will not hesitate to do whatever it can to protect the globalist oligarch and plutocrats of the political establishment and military industrial complex – even an invasion (as in the case of Iraq).

Historically for the U.S., the Coup has been and will continue to be the weapon of choice aside assignation to topple any nation that place their people before American and even western concern. Vietnam was just one example.  We saw the same in Iran in 1953, where America (the CIA) spent millions to hire thugs and professional protestors to act out a real life overly violent protest across the streets of Tehran and this is based on the words of the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt. When loyal troops to the democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh it became even more violent resulting in the deaths of hundreds eventually leading the forced resignation of Mosaddegh by members of parliament and others whom had been bribed by Roosevelt some weeks before.  Why were these actions taken, so America and the U.K. could install their puppet Shah whom had agreed to restore Western ownership of the oil industry which Mosaddegh vowed to take from the west and nationalize it? 

Then there is the example of Haiti in 2004 when hundreds of U.S. Special Forces worked with, trained and invaded the country from the Dominican Republic with anti-Lavalas.  U.S. Special Forces were used to trained FRAPH militiamen andanti-Lavalas forces in the Dominican Republic.  Upon which they invaded northern Haiti to set the groundwork for the overthrow of President Aristide. This approach is typical for carrying out a CIA ignited coup, in particular for Latin America, where they target nations that desire political and economic independence from the U.S. We saw this in Venezuela in 2002 and may be witnessing it currently. When successful, participants are rewarded with loot or positions of leadership (see Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for one such example).  In the end, the new leadership always ends up with the funding, backing and support of the U.S.

In the case of Turkey, I suspect that Erdogan bombing of U.S. supported Kurd's supposedly fighting ISIS in the North, and his increasingly dictatorial control on the country in concert with Americas need to have access to Incerlik airfield, everything came to boil.

Nonetheless, finding and instructing opposition forces and the promotion of violence and unrest in the streets is how the U.S. via the CIA create a state of emergency as a way to get rid of an elected or government and to gain power such that U.S. interest are paramount over the will and desires of said nation states.  All that is left is the right time to take action to remove the government and install the coup puppet leaders in its place. We saw this work to perfection in the Ukraine where the Obama coup machine had its most successful outcome (too early to say regarding Yemen).

In January 2014 street protests turned violent in Ukraine.  Most of it was by the hands of the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the Right Sector militia.  Ironically the Right Sector militia had only been in existence for less than a year at the time and documents show that it is funded by Ukrainian exiles living in the west – mainly the U.S. and Europe (another typical CIA ploy).  We know that the Obama administration via Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that the Obama Administration were waiting for and anticipating a coup to happen in Ukraine. 

These are just a few past and recent historic examples that are extremely well documented.  This is why I am of the firm and assured belief that the Obama Administration was behind this.  Then there is the photographic evidence that shows US Ambassador to Turkey, John Basse meeting with Turkish NATO Colonel Ali Yazici (in Photo) the day before the Coup attempt on the afternoon of August 7th.  For the record Col. Yazıcı was one of the leaders of the coup and former military adviser to President Erdogan. According to reports, they met at Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.

The fact is that I may not be able to prove it completely, but what we just saw in Turkey had U.S. DNA all over it. It was a mirror image of what was observed in the Ukraine and to a lesser extent Iraq. And If may be honest, Syria as well, for we all know it is not improbable that the Obama Administration is supporting ISIS against Assad.  I say this in all sincerity, for we knew Erdogan was sending weapons to ISIS and said nothing and Syria (Russia) just intercepted conversation between US forces and ISIS right before we bombed and killed scores of Syrian military fighters.

So say what you may, but I do believe the Obama Administration was behind this, what else can one expect from a president who is also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient?

Read More

Yes, Our Generals Have Been Reduced to Rubbish

Rubble is a noun that describes waste or debris from the demolition of buildings in the form of stone, brick, and/or concrete. After saying U.S. “generals under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not been successful,” and that under their leadership “generals have beenreduced to rubble, reduced to a point where it is embarrassing for our country” during a media extravaganza produced by NBC, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been deluged with criticism for his assertions.  Unfortunately criticism aside, there is both truth and merit to his statements whether the word used was rubble or rubbish.

By definition rubbish is something very bad, worthless or useless, it means that something has lost its utility (the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial). If one looks at how the military leadership has been rendered impotent (utterly unable to do something for lacking in power and strength) he is correct. Since Obama began his term in 2009, with respect to the U.S. military and armed forces, one thing has been clear – he has removed more of the top military leadership brass than any president in modern times.  Let us just look at his record to start with. Since taking office, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that has never been seen before by a U.S. President.  In fact it is somewhat reminiscent of what we have just observed Erdogan do in Turkey.  One report notes that President Obama has removed or purged the military of at least 197 top admirals and generals in his first five years.

Obama fired Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Carter Ham. By the way, Gen. Ham. was also relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Then there is the strange issue of President Obama’s approach to defeating the Islamic State. It is well documented that President Obama typically silences any general that advises the use of US groundtroops in Iraq.  The Whitehouse has done this publically and behind closed doors. His consistent mantra, regardless of the advice of those with military and combat experience is that the US will not fight another ground war in Iraq nor will he put US boots on the ground.

This albeit US commanders inform him that it is improbably that the United States military will ever be able to defeat ISIS via air power alone. Gen. Lloyd Austin was the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Gen. MartinDempsey was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2011 to 2015 both advised President Obama that ground troops would be required t defeat ISIS. Yet still, any advice offered that didn’t match Obama’s political aims (not military aims) were rejected, in particular the use of ground troops. Instead, President Obama unilaterally decided that he knew better and would only send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces.  Even General Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said Obama’s decision not to send ground troops basically makes the mission to defeat ISIS improbable.

It is true Obama had to reduce the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, but namely because he failed to even try to argue against the levels outlined in the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. At the time there were around 45,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and generals on the ground had requested a reduced number but did not foresee the military's troop-level going below 10,000. But such a number was too high for the Obama administration which preferred a number closer to 3,000, which meant that this was never a combat mission but rather served a training only commitment.

The same can be said for the mission in Afghanistan as well. It is well know that the Afghan military do not have the necessary combat troop levels and power to protect every part of the country let alone to be in the position to effectively counter the Taliban. Gen. Martin Dempsey replacement, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that he didn’t agree with Obama’s decision to pull all troops out by the end of 2016.  His purview was that such a troop reduction seems to place policy over military implications.

This has been noted by several military experts. Retired Army Gen. John Keane, who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past question Obama’s approach to Afghanistan as well as Army Gen. John Campbell, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, among others.

Keane pointed outthat Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800, but Mr. Obama “cut that in half,” adding that President Obama frequently “does not listen to his combat field general,” and on six occasions ignored “field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat.” And like ISIS, the Taliban is becoming more brazen and powerful while claiming more area without any real push back from the Afghan security forces or police.

In addition, Obama’s plan will have to depend on an unlikely assumption: that the formation of an inclusive Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can manifest.  This is the only way President Obama will have a 1 percent chance of defeating the Islamic State without U.S. troops being on the ground.  In addition, this means that Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi will have to make significant inroads into healing sectarian wounds that were engendered by Nouri al-Maliki. But bringing the new Shia-led government to a Kumbaya moment with Iraq’s Sunni minority may proffer to be a lot more difficult and could result in Sunni tribesmen moving towards ISIS instead of away from them. This approach is not only mousy and incoherent; it also involves serious risk (mainly having to depend on an incompetent and dysfunctional Iraqi military).

So Donald Trump may be more accurate than some may desire. When the President fires, without hesitation, top Brass the likes of the aforementioned, and never even considers firing or disciplining appointed member of his staff when they break the law, there has to be some additional motive and or reasoning behind such. Obama. The question is why deliberately reduce or military leadership to rubbish? 

Read More