Global Research

A vote in regard to whether Britain should withdraw from the European Union is an epic event; one which if in the affirmative would profoundly shape its destiny for a generation.

My first impression is that David Cameron has not obtained the ‘unique’ status which he promised to extract from Brussels to mollify those who favour continued membership under a looser arrangement.

1. If the preamble in the original founding document which aims for an “ever closer union” is not explicitly re-worded so far as Britain is concerned, for instance in regard to future treaties, then Cameron would obviously not have secured a singular status for Britain.

The Schuman-Monnet ideal of “closer union” is after all often seen as the theoretical blueprint for an eventually federated European family of nations.

2. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from which the United Kingdom initially opted out recently became incorporated into British law. The provisions effectively replicate most of the major provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR regime has provided similarly emotion-laced public discourse on the loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty to a supra-national legal body. If Cameron has not reinstated an opt out, it would mean that even if Britain renounced the ECHR, it would be bound to follow the tenets of human rights law created by EU institutions.

It is important to note that EU law is ‘stronger’ than ECHR law. Under the ECHR treaty, member nations promise to incorporate human rights law into their national laws. They are required merely to take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. However, British courts are bound to apply the laws emanated from the European Union.

3. The operation of the ‘Common Agricultural Policy’ which absorbs a great deal of the EU budget and which has favoured France could also be added to the list. If reform of this is not a factor in Cameron’s deal, then it falls short.

My view is that Britain should either be completely in or completely out. More importantly, that is how the other countries led by Germany and France see it. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was often reminded, the organisation cannot function in the form of a “two-track” system; this notwithstanding the mechanism of opt-out clauses in treaties.

France and Germany have been at the heart of the formation of a union of European nations because of the historical rivalry between both nations. The blood spilled during the Franco-Prussian War, the Great War and the Second World War testify to this.

The underlying almost forgotten rationale for the creation of the EU is thus the preservation of a previously elusive peace on the European continent. But membership of this brand of supra-national entity was always going to come with a price.

The bargain is simply this: in return for the benefits of economic, social, cultural, technological and political co-operation, that is peace and mutual prosperity, each member state must consent to forfeiting part of its national law making powers. The EU thus forms a supra-national legal entity whereby the member states have established a separate and independent legal authority that is superior to their domestic institutions.

The idea of “forfeiting part” of your national sovereignty is perhaps a severe understatement to those exercised by what is considered to be the EU’s inexorable drift towards being a ‘super state.’ It is clearly the case that the administrative and legal capacity of the original European Community has with successive treaties related to budgetary matters, economic integration and enlargement has increased manifold.

National leaders and their citizens are ambivalent about what might appear to be a choice of retaining national sovereignty and identity on the one hand or being transformed into a seemingly uniform state.

The ‘Little Englander’ complex or less crude depictions of reluctant Englishmen feeling culturally and physically apart from their continental neighbours is not the only discernible anti-European sentiment held among EU member states. For instance, German Euro-scepticism has increased given the perceived burdens it places on the German economy.

But the fundamental belief that Germany and France are at the core of the EU cannot be shaken off. France had under President de Gaulle repeatedly blocked Britain’s entry into what was then the ‘Common Market’. De Gaulle’s rationale while based on what he claimed was Britain’s “economic incompatibility” did not impress many Briton’s who sensed his intransigence was based on a personal antipathy towards the Anglo-Saxon nations.

The British elite has been traditionally divided on the matter of Europe. And despite the focus on the issue being a source of disunity among the members of the Conservative Party, those on the political Left have never been unanimous in their views. Where the Right focused on national sovereignty, the anti-Common Market Left felt that there was a threat posed to working class jobs.

An impending referendum will be interesting on so many fronts. It will be one of the few times in British political history that the constitutional convention of collective cabinet responsibility will be abrogated. Government ministers will not be coerced into following a party line and will be free to campaign for either side. When a referendum was held in 1975 to decide whether Britain should remain a member after joining in 1973, the Right-wing Enoch Powell and the Left-wing Tony Benn campaigned on the ‘No’ side.

The British opinion polls show a fine split between the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ sides with the ‘undecided’ element holding the balance.

The perception of whether Cameron has secured a meaningful deal may be crucial not only to the result of the vote, but also to his political survival.

A vote to leave the EU by the British public may even have wider ramifications. Domestically, this would likely result in the permanent dismemberment of the United Kingdom. The leadership of the Scottish National Party has repeatedly asserted that it would trigger a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Britain’s exit could also spur other EU member states to leave. It may also have implications for the survival of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The president of the United States, Barack Obama has gone on the record several times to register his disapproval of the idea of a British departure from the EU. Obama’s position arguably reflects the view of the American political establishment which prefers to formulate policy with the EU entity rather than with individual European states. This includes Britain. It is a policy which pointedly disregards any sentiment toward their shared English-speaking heritage and the frequently touted ‘Special Relationship.’

While they are separate institutions, EU policy is often synchronized with the political and military objectives of NATO, an organisation which is led by the United States. An obvious example of this relates to United States policy towards the Russian Federation and the flashpoint that is Ukraine.

Guided by the post-Cold War policies formulated respectively by Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both the Wolfowitz and Brzezinski Doctrines promote the idea of maintaining American global hegemony. The latter, which is geared towards the promoting the neutralisation of Russia as a military and economic competitor, is a fundamental precondition in achieving such a state of affairs.

The fomenting of the coup of February 2014 which deposed the elected government of Viktor Yanukovyc was orchestrated by the American government which clearly prodded a reluctant EU into backing it. The role of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, was central in getting the approval of the EU in the overthrow of the Yanukovyc government. A recorded conversation she had with the American ambassador to Kiev captured her expressing her contempt for European caution through the infamous “Fuck the E.U.” remark.

The hand of the United States in essentially forcing EU nations such as Germany and France to support its policy of sanctions –despite the fact that such measures have proved to be harmful to the interests of these countries- makes it all too apparent why the United States prefers to deal with a collective body of states.

For those who are critical of the aggression and militarism apparent in American foreign policy, the United States control of NATO and by extension the EU has provided the necessary cover under which American administrations have pursued a succession of geo-political objectives that have been lacking in legal and moral terms. The refugee crisis that is presently confronting EU member states owes a great deal to NATO action in reducing Libya into a lawless state from which uncontrolled amounts of refugees can begin perilous journeys. The Syrian Civil War, a conflict underwritten by America and NATO has massively contributed to the waves of refugees making their way to the EU via its Mediterranean borders.

Thus the issue for Britons worried about the loss of national sovereignty to Brussels ought also to focus on the United Kingdom as country dictated to by the United States which has used the EU as a vehicle to promote its national interests at the expense of the interests of EU member states.

Of course, they will also need to contemplate on how withdrawal can best serve Britain’s national economic and political interests. Outside of the EU, it would lose a huge amount of bargaining power when dealing with other economic blocs around the globe.

A lot will be at stake on Thursday, June 23^rd when the British public make their verdict.

Adeyinka Makinde is based in London where he teaches Public Law.

This April 6th the Netherlands will hold a (non-binding) referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (EUAA), as the result of a petition to the government signed by 427,939 voters. Until the results of the referendum are known, the EUAA cannot be ratified by the Dutch government and therefore cannot officially go into effect.

The Dutch government headed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte is firmly in favour of the agreement and from the moment it became clear it would be obliged (by law) to organize the referendum, has urged voters on every possible occasion to vote “Yes”.

The communication strategy the Rutte government is to follow in the upcoming weeks was leaked by Dutch RTL News on Wednesday (18-02-2016). Media experts have formulated guidelines and full statements for government officials to use when addressing voters. Political reporter Roel Geeraedts, who obtained the documents, describes it as “A prime example of State propaganda.”

Do’s and Don’ts

The strategy has some remarkable aspects. Especially the Do’s and Don’ts are insightful (full PDF document in Dutch available for downloading here).

For example: the term “Association agreement” is deemed too difficult to be understood by the public, officials are instructed to use “cooperative agreement” (in Dutch ‘working-together-agreement’): “This cooperative agreement is in the interest of the Netherlands and Ukraine. It deals with easier trade and a democratic, free Ukraine.” The statement reflects the three main arguments to be used in support of the EUAA: stabilizing/democratizing Ukraine, trade and cooperation.

Ministers are urged not to enter into discussions on wider subjects, such as the EU or failing democracy, and also apparently the political and military components of the EUAA, which are not mentioned anywhere, despite their significance.

According to the document, it should be made clear to the public that the Netherlands is against Ukraine becoming an EU-member.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte

Dutch PM Mark Rutte

The authors of the guideline warn against over-emphasizing security issues regarding Russia or an explicit pro/con Putin stance (they specifically name the President, not the country). They consider it more effective to say we do not accept Russia’s engaging in Ukrainian affairs – the media experts emphasize this point specifically – and repeatedly.

They also urge the government not to make the Ukrainian situation appear better than it is, an overly enthusiastic endorsement will lead to skepticism under voters. Thus scare-tactics should be avoided, as this will be counterproductive (apparently Mr. Juncker did not get this memo as he warned that a Dutch “No” could lead to a “continental crisis”).

Another key point of the instruction is that the EUAA is just one of the many cooperation treaties the EU has with over 25 countries throughout the world – nothing to worry about. That the EUAA is different from similar treaties with regard to political and military aspects is not mentioned.

How to sell the Association Agreement to the public

The media experts offer a detailed strategy on what points the government should put forward to sell the EUAA to the public (another PDF in Dutch for downloading here). Some highlights:

On Ukrainian authorities and ambitions:

• the EUAA is the foundation for the Ukrainian reform programme, with this treaty Ukraine will work on substantial reforms to become a grown-up democracy without corruption
• without the EUAA, Ukrainians won’t be able to continue implementing democratic reforms and combating corruption, they will have to do it by themselves, without EU assistance
• the EU won’t be able to hold the Ukrainian government to its commitments and it is questionable that the necessary reforms will then be implemented at all, even though the Ukrainian people want this very much [what touching confidence in the Ukrainian authorities!] (this argument is repeated and emphasized throughout both documents! – A.L.)
• with the help of the EU, Ukraine wants to become a country with a functioning government, independent judges and respect for human rights, where corruption is addressed and gay rights are respected
• it wants to become a country where companies can freely and easily do business with Dutch companies and where citizens are affluent enough to buy our products
• the ordinary Ukrainian has time and time again chosen in favour of this agreement with the EU: during the Maidan revolution in 2013-2014 and afterwards thousands of people have literally died for it [never mind that most casualties were actually opponents of the agreement– A.L.]
• during the last elections for parliament the pro-European parties received 68,5% of the votes – even in the mostly Russian-speaking East the majority of the people supported these parties [again, the fact that several opposition parties had been prohibited and the majority of the people living in Eastern Ukraine either boycotted the elections or were unable to participate because of the war the Kiev regime wages against them is not mentioned – A.L.]

On Ukraine’s EU-membership:

• the EUAA is not a first step to Ukraine becoming an EU-member [it mentions specifically that the Netherlands opposes a Ukraine EU-membership with reference to its VETO right – A.L.]
• this is just an agreement with a neighbour, the EUAA is a good way to cooperate with Ukraine without it leading to its EU-membership [ergo to keep Ukraine outside the EU, vote “Yes” – A.L.]
• the EUAA does not give Ukrainians visa-free entry into the EU
• visa regulations are being discussed, but not in the context of the EUAA and this concerns tourist-visa only, not Ukrainians’ right to live and work in the EU

A propaganda cartoon showing advantages of associating with the EU for the Ukrainians

On money and commitments:

• the EUAA will not cost us extra money, the EU and IMF are already providing Ukraine with financial aid outside of this agreement
• the EUAA does not oblige EU members to financially support Ukraine

On Russia and Putin:

• when the EUAA is not ratified and entered into force, this will greatly please President Putin [again the President is mentioned personally], this means that Ukraine has not been able to decide its own fate [interesting logic]
• the EUAA allows for good relations with Russia, it makes demands regarding the treatment of minorities
• Russia has no right to interfere with the positive development of the Ukrainian people, for example by invading Ukraine [!]; the EUAA does not deal with this conflict, this is discussed within the Minsk treaty framework
• President Putin tried to stop the EUAA to keep Ukraine within his sphere of influence and under his control
• we would like to cooperate with Russia, too, they also profit from a stable Ukraine – unfortunately they are not interested in this [this is an outright lie, see here or here  for just some examples – A.L.]

On the referendum and its outcome:

• the Dutch government will actively campaign for a “Yes”
• with a turnout of less than 30% or a “Yes” outcome the government will ratify the EUAA; with a “No” outcome the government will discuss the matter with parliament
  [earlier Dutch FM Bert Koenders informed parliament that in this case the government will send a proposal to the Parliament and the Senate to decide; the Dutch Parliament has indicated it will respect the outcome of the referendum – A.L.]
  

  Musicians of the Maidan” are entitled to take part in Yes campaign by the Dutch government

• elements of the EUAA that have already come into effect per 01-01-2016 won’t be stopped automatically because of a “No” by the Dutch; however, they were implemented with the expectation that the EUAA will be ratified by all EU members, a “No” would therefore require new negotiations [the message the Dutch is to send out is that we expect it won’t happen – A.L.]
• the Dutch government has requested the OSCE to send observers, but they have declined because it is not usual for them to send observers to referenda [apparently no other observers were asked; it is unclear whether they would be welcome – A.L.]
• the EUAA was agreed between democratically elected leaders from democratic countries with Ukraine [no mention of the fact that the political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 by interim “President” Oleksandr Turchynov, who was installed after a violent and foreign-sponsored coup d’etat – A.L.]
• the Dutch authorities do not expect the outcome of the referendum to interfere with the investigation into the MH17 tragedy: “It is and will remain the common goal of the Netherlands and Ukraine to find and bring to trial the perpetrators of this cowardly act”
• as according to Dutch law foreign financing of Dutch organisations is allowed, it is Ok that George Soros [yes, he is mentioned in the document – A.L.] is engaged in the media campaign in the Netherlands and makes no secret of it.

The team

Rutte’s government has identified (link to a PDF in Dutch) a kaleidoscope of parties that can help promote the “Yes” campaign: political parties (Labour, Progressive-Liberals, Greens and conservative Christians), politicians (a.o. EU Commisioner Frans Timmermans and Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan), EU officials Juncker, Mogherini, Hahn, Fule and Tusk, international organisations (IMF, World bank, OSCE, NATO), civil society (Greenpeace, LGBT community, Unions [with a question mark] and the Maidan cluster), companies and famous Ukrainians living in the Netherlands.

PM Rutte has reacted to the leak of his media strategy, trying to dismiss the incident by joking: “It’s disheartening. Really nothing can remain secret.” The government still expects the Dutch people to support them on the EUAA. Most opinion polls up-to-now indicate they won’t.

Anneke de Laaf is the Editor of NovayaGazeta.nl project and the Chairperson for the Dutch Forum “Sovereign Europe”.

The class struggle from above found its most intense , comprehensive and retrograde expression in Argentina, with the election of Mauricio Macri (December 2015).  During the first two months in office, through the arbitrary assumption of emergency powers, he reversed, by decree, a multitude of progressive socio-economic policies passed over the previous decade and sought to purge public institutions of independent voices.

Facing a hostile majority in Congress, he seized legislative powers and proceeded to name two Supreme Court judges in violation of the Constitution.

President Macri purged all the Ministries and agencies of perceived critics and appointees of the previous government and replaced those officials with loyalist neo-liberal functionaries.  Popular movement leaders were jailed, and former Cabinet members were prosecuted.

Parallel to the reconfiguration of the state, President Macri launched a neo-liberal counter-revolution: a 40% devaluation which raised prices of the basic canasta over 30%; the termination of an export tax for all agro-mineral exporters (except soya farmers); a salary and wage cap 20% below the rise in the cost of living; a 400% increase in electrical bills and a 200% increase in transport; large scale firing of public and private employees; strike breaking using rubber bullets; preparations for large scale privatizations of strategic economic sectors; a 6.5 billion dollar payout to vulture-fund debt holders and speculaters-a 1000%return-  while contracting new debts.

President Macri’s high intensity class warfare is intended to reverse, the social welfare and progressive policies implemented by the Kirchner regimes over the past 12 years (2003-2015).

President Macri has launched a virulent new version of the class struggle from above, following a long-term neo-liberal cyclical pattern which has witnessed:

1. Authoritarian military rule (1966-1972) accompanied by intense class struggle from below followed by democratic elections (1973-1976).
2. Military dictatorship and intense class struggle from above (1976-1982)resulting in the murder of 30.000 workers.
3. A negotiated transition to electoral politics (1983)a hyper inflationary crises and the deepening of neo-liberalism (1989-2000).
4. Crises and collapse of neoliberalism and insurrectionary class struggle from below 2001-2003.
5. Center-left Kirchner-Fernandez regimes (2003-2015): a labor-capital-regime social pact.
6. Authoritarian neo-liberal Macri regime(2015) and intense class struggle from above. Macri’s strategic perspective is to consolidate a new power bloc of local agro-mineral,and banking oligarchs, foreign bankers and investors and the police-military apparatus to massively increase profits by cheapening labor

The roots of the rise of the neo-liberal power bloc can be found in the practices and policies of the previous Kirchner-Fernandez regimes.  Their policies were designed to overcome the capitalist crises of 2000-2002 by channeling mass discontent toward social reforms, stimulating agro-mineral exports and increasing living standards via progressive taxes, electricity and food subsidies, and pension increases.  Kirchner’s progressive policies were based on the boom in commodity prices. When they collapsed the capital-labor ‘co-existence’ dissolveded and the Macri led business-middle class-foreign capital alliance was well placed to take advantage of the demise of the model.

The class struggle from below was severely weakened by the labor alliance with the center-left Kirchner regime .Not because labor benefited economically but because the pact demobilized the mass organizations of the 2001 -2003 period.  Over the course of the next 12 years’ labor entered into sectorial negotiations (paritarias) mediated by a ‘friendly government’. Class consciousness was replaced by ‘sectoral’ allegiances and bread and butter issues.  Labor unions lost their capacity to wage class struggle from below – or even influence sectors of the popular classes.  Labor was vulnerable and is in a weak position to confront President Macri’s virulent neo-liberal counter-reform offensive.

Nevertheless, the extreme measures adopted by Macri— the deep cuts in purchasing power, spiraling inflation and mass firings have led to the first phases of a renewal of the class struggle from below.

Strikes by teachers and public employees over salaries and firings have flared up in response to the barrage of public sector cuts and arbitrary executive decrees.  Sporadic mass demonstrations have been called by social  and human rights movements in response to Macri’s dismantling of the institutions prosecuting military officials responsible for the killing and disappearance of 30,000 victims during the “dirty war” (1976-83).

As the Macri regime proceeds to deepen and extend his regressive measures designed to lower labor costs, business taxes and living standards to entice capital with higher profits, as inflation soars and the economy stagnates due to the decline of public investment and consumption, the class struggle from below is likely to intensify –general strikes and related forms of direct action are likely before the end of the first year of the Macri regime.

Large scale class based organizations capable of engaging in  intense class struggle from below, weakened by the decade-long ‘corporate model’ of the Kitchener era, will take time to reconstruct.  The question is when and what it will take to organize a class-wide(national)  political movement which can move beyond  an electoral repudiation of Macri allied candidates in upcoming  legislative, provincial and municipal elections.

This is called taking it to the top.

Russia is set to initiate a meeting of the UN Security Council today to prevent Turkey’s planned invasion of Syria.

Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, is most concerned with:

Turkey’s announced plans to put boots on the ground in northern Syria,

It undercuts efforts to launch a political settlement in the Syrian Arab Republic,

Watch a video of this report here:

Russia seeks to do the following at the meeting:

End any actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, that are at odds with UN Security Council resolution 2254, as well as [interfere] with the launch of the Syrian peace process.

Just two weeks ago Russia announced that it had ‘serious grounds’ to believe Turkey was planning a ground invasion, after the Turks refused to let Russia fly surveillance flights near its border with Syria.

Since then, Saudi Arabia has been openly supportive of the plan and Turkey has been hyping numerous reasons that it could use to try and justify its coming invasion.

Turkey has even proposed somewhat of a land-grab, saying it wants a 10km ‘secure line’ cut across Northern Syria, which also happened to include an arms smuggling corridor that the CIA has been using to supply terrorists throughout Syria.

Incredibly, instead of taking Turkey’s threatening behaviour seriously, Samantha Power of the United States accused Moscow of trying to “distract the world” with its Security Council resolution.

Perhaps what angers the US the most is that Russia is playing this 100% by the book, an alien concept to US foreign policy for at least the past 15 years, as it seeks to guarantee thesovereignty of the Syrian state and properly eradicate its terror problem.

Is Russia’s resolution simply a ‘distraction’, or a genuine attempt to prevent World War 3?

SAA seizes last key village along Aleppo-Raqqa highway, trapping almost 1,000 ISIS terrorists 

Islamic State fighters are commonly referred to as ‘ISIS rats’ on the internet. That unflattering designation may have gone from being one of mere pejorative to one being literally true.

It is being reported that the Syrian Arab Army has seized the last remaining village along the Aleppo-Raqqa Highway, thus completing the encirclement of 800 ISIS members in East Aleppo and trapping them like, well, rats.

It is an especially cruel and ironic twist of fate for these sad souls as a great number of them were no doubt part of the siege of the Kuweires airbase located in the same region. The Syrian Army somehow managed to hold out for 18 grueling months until Russian air power eventually broke it down in November 2015.

ISIS trapped in a boiling cauldron

If the encirclement is as complete as is being reported,

ISIS is in for a very painful experience. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. No one will be coming to help them and there is no escape. There is just the wait. Waiting under Russian jets and surrounded by an enraged army – an army so many members of which were subjected to some of the most appalling war crimes imaginable. With ISIS’ limited skills in negotiation, this could be a very harsh and brutal end of the road.

In the last fifty or so years, the ancient and beautiful religion of Judaism has been hijacked by political thugs who have used the Zionist movement to persecute, humiliate and oppress millions of indigenous Palestinian Arabs whose families have lived between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan for over a thousand years. Crucially, the Political Zionists use the spurious cloak of religion to justify their actions.

In particular, they misquote or misuse biblical texts to persuade gullible governments in both the United States and Europe together with millions of equally impressionable evangelical Christians**, that Zionism is validated by God.

The reality is that many from both sides of the Jewish religious spectrum i.e. Reform and orthodox, are opposed to the Zionist project and have been so since its inception.

Fact: Religious Judaism and Political Zionism* are mutually exclusive. The former is a thousands of years’ old, religious and moral force for good, from which emanated Christianity, whilst the latter is a modern political movement that falsely claims not only an ethnic superiority, plus the right to the entire land of Palestine, but also the endorsement of the former.

For over six years, the Political Zionist movement has turned Gaza into the world’s largest open-air prison camp in which the Israeli government deliberately keeps nearly two million souls at just above subsistence level through the blockading of essential medical, food and building supplies, in an abortive and criminal attempt at regime change.

Astonishingly, a blind eye is turned to this illegal, inhumane programme by both the British and American governments who, for years, have been indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda – even to this day. Just this week, the British government declared that any current legitimate boycott of goods from the Israeli Occupied Territories would in future be considered unlawful and subject to harsh penalties.

The documented fact that now more than 500,000 Israeli citizens have been induced by their government to leave their homes in Israel to illegally settle on Palestinian land in a spurious attempt to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, is implicitly endorsed by the British government in an astonishing and unprecedented assault upon international law and a denial of the essential principles of democracy.

The consequence of this acceptance of the Israeli government’s criminal agenda by both the AIPAC-controlled US congress and the CFI-controlled British government is the fuelling of the now frightening increase in anti-Semitic attitudes in universities, on campus, on the streets and in social circles throughout Europe as ordinary people now recognise the terrible injustice being perpetrated by the Zionist movement against an entire indigenous people and, incredibly, of it being endorsed by their own governments, apparently having succumbed to the influence of powerful lobbyists.

Modern Political Zionism with its lobbyists embedded within national legislatures worldwide should be proscribed by the United Nations as an organisation that increases ethnic prejudice and violence. Otherwise, history could be repeated and a great evil could again be perpetrated that would be beyond the ability of any government to control.

There is, consequently, an absolute imperative for urgent inter-governmental action, not only throughout Europe but also in the US and Canada. According to University of Montreal Professor Yakov Rabkin

‘Political Zionism implies the existence of a separate Jewish nation and separate Jewish political interests. This is why Jewish anti-Zionists affirmed individualism, arguing that their rights would be better protected by governments in liberal democracies than by parochial self-serving ethnic organizations, let alone an ethnocratic state.’

There are two major unknown questions concerning the breakdown in relations between Turkey and Russia following the ambush of a Russian Su-24 bomber in the skies above Syria. The first is what turn of events prompted Turkey’s leadership to adopt a course of confrontation against Russia. The second is why this escalation did not come months sooner, when Hmeimim was far more vulnerable to Turkish attack or blockade.

When the Russian aircraft first arrived at Hmeimim, the war was going badly for the Syrian government. The terrorists were able to make major advances during the prior months, and were close to threatening Damascus itself. Syrian forces were demoralized by their setbacks and suffering from shortages of equipment and ammunition.

The Russian air group at that point numbered slightly more than 30 aircraft, the base had no long-range air defenses, and only a small ground contingent to protect it on the ground. The bulk of the materiel for the base and for the rearmament of the Syrian army was only beginning to arrive by Syria Express ships which were busy traversing the Bosphorus in both directions.

The Russian military has not yet demonstrated its combat effectiveness or its long reach – it would do only after the air campaign reached its full tempo and began to be accompanied by cruise missile strikes and heavy bomber sorties. If Erdogan decided to launch a ground operation in Syria in September or October of 2015, when the situation presented far more tempting opportunities, Turkish forces stood a far better chance of influencing the outcome of the war in Syria than they do right now.

Several months later, the situation has changed to such an extent that Turkish intervention has almost no chance of scoring a military success.  Hmeimim now hosts over 50 aircraft, including Su-27SM, Su-30SM, and Su-35S fighters which can provide effective fighter defense against Turkish incursions. It is also protected by a multi-layered air defense system which includes the S-400 high altitude, long-range missile system, Buk-M2 medium range weapons, and Pantsir-S short-range gun/missile vehicles which are capable of shooting down not only aircraft but also cruise missiles and guided bombs. Hostile aircraft would also face a barrage of electronic countermeasures that would significantly degrade their ability to target Hmeimim.  The cruise missile launches by Russian naval ships and heavy bombers have demonstrated the ability to target Turkish air bases and destroy Turkish aircraft on the ground, in the event of escalation of the fighting.

Russian bases in Syria also enjoy the protection from a constant presence of a naval task force, which includes a missile cruiser armed with long-range anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons, several anti-submarine ships, and at least one missile corvette.

On the ground, the battalion force of Russian troops is hardly the only ground protection of the Hmeimim base.  Russian military assistance, including provision of heavy equipment, munitions, and military planners and advisers, has returned the Syrian Arab Army to an effective fighting condition. In addition, the Syrian army is no longer the only military force defending Syria. Thanks to Russian diplomatic efforts, several Syrian opposition groups have joined the government forces in their struggle against the extremists. Likewise the Kurdish units which in the past waged their own uncoordinated struggle against ISIS have now been fully incorporated into the Russian-led coalition in return for Syrian government’s political concessions. There is also a sizable Hezbollah and Iranian presence in Syria. Considering that none of these forces are likely to defect to Turkey in the event of Turkish invasion, and that in some cases they view Turkey as their mortal enemy, the Turkish military would likely not advance very far before suffering heavy losses at the hands of Syria’s defenders. Russian and Syrian long-range weapons now include heavy multiple rocket launchers and Tochka short-range ballistic missiles that would be deadly to Turkish armored columns advancing through narrow mountain paths under the watchful eyes of Russian drones and long-range surveillance aircraft like the Tu-214 and the Il-20.

Even the prospect of the Bosphorus blockade is not as threatening as it once seemed.  Syria Express is now mainly concerned with providing consumables like munitions and spare parts to the forces fighting in Syria. In the event Bosphorus were to be blocked, these supplies could be shipped from the Baltic Sea and, in really urgent cases, by air using the traditional Caspian-Iran-Iraq-Syria air route.

In the longer term, it is essential that Russian and Syrian forces punch a corridor through ISIS territory and link up with Iraqi forces, and there are indications that once extremists around Aleppo are neutralized, the nextmajor offensive will be launched in the direction of Raqqa. Doing so would not only break the back of ISIS, but also enable the opening of another overland supply route through the Caspian Sea and Iran.  The strength of the Russia-led coalition which seems to have taken all outside observers by surprise is such that it is probably sufficient to deter Turkish military air or ground assault against Syria. While we do not yet know how this happened, it would appear that Moscow was able to outmaneuver Ankara by placing a highly effective military force right under its nose in Syria and reverse the course of the war before Ankara was able to react.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

The past week saw no decrease in the tense confrontation between Turkey and Russia over Syria. While Russia’s position is simple – ‘we are ready to fight’ – the Turkish position is much more ambiguous: Turkish politicians are saying one thing, then the opposite and then something else again. At times they make it sound like an invasion is imminent, and at times they say that “Turkey plans no unilateralinvasion”. Since a UN authorized invasion of Syria will never happen, this means some kind of “coalition of the willing”, possibly NATO. The problem here is that the Europeans have no desire to end up in a war against Russia. At the same time, the US and France refuse to allow a UN Resolution which would reaffirm the sovereignty of Syria. Yup, that’s right. The US and France apparently think that the UN Charter (which affirms the sovereignty of all countries) does not apply to Syria. Go figure…

There are persistent rumors that top Turkish military commanders, categorically oppose any attack on Syria and that they want no part in a war with Russia. I don’t blame them one bit as they understand perfectly well two simple things: first, Turkey does not need a war, only Erdogan does; second, when Turkey is defeated, Erdogan will blame the military. There are also signs of disagreements inside the USA over the prospects of such a war, with the Neocons backing Erdogan and pushing him towards war just as they had done with Saakashvili while the White House and Foggy Bottom are telling Erdogan to “cool it”. As for the Turks themselves, they have shelled Kurdish and Syrian positions across the border and, on at least two occasions, a small military force has been seen crossing the border.

From a purely military point of view, it makes absolutely no sense for the Turks to mass at the border, declare that they are about to invade, then stop, do some shelling and then only send a few little units across the border. What the Turks should have done was to covertly begin to increase the level of readiness of their forces then and then attacked as soon as Russians detected their preparations even if that meant that they would have to initiate combat operations before being fully mobilized and ready. The advantages of a surprise attack are so big that almost every other consideration has to be put aside in order to achieve it. The Turks did the exact opposite: they advertised their intentions to invade and once their forces were ready, they simply stopped at the border and began issuing completely contradictory declarations. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What complicates this already chaotic situation is that Erdogan is clearly a lunatic and that there appears to the at least the possibility of some serious infighting between the Turkish political leaders and the military.

Furthermore, there appears to be some very bad blood between the USA and the Erdogan regime. Things got so bad that Erdogan’s chief adviser, Seref Malkoc, said that Turkey might deny the US the use of Incirlik Air Base for strikes against ISIL if the US does not name the YPG as a terrorist group. Erdogan later repudiated this statement, but the fact remains that the Turks are now directly blackmailing the USA. If Erdogan and his advisors seriously believe that they can publicly blackmail a superpower like the USA then their days are numbered. At the very least, this kind of irresponsible outbursts shows that the Turks are really crumbling under the pressure they themselves have created.

Still, the fact that Turkey has not invaded yet is a tiny minute sign that maybe, just maybe, the Turks will give up on this crazy notion or that they will limit themselves to a ‘mini-invasion’ just a few miles across the border. The military would probably prefer such a minimal face saving option, but what about Erdogan and the crazies around him?

Maybe the Turkish military ought to realize that the country is ruled by the madman and do something about it?

Still, the Russians are taking no chances and they have put all their forces into high alert. They have very publicly dispatched a Tu-214r – her most advanced ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft. You can think of the Tu-214R as an “AWACS for the ground”, the kind of aircraft you use to monitor a major ground battle (the regular Russian A-50Ms are already monitoring the Syrian airspace). In southern Russia, the Aerospace forces have organized large-scale exercises involving a large number of aircraft which would be used in a war against Turkey: SU-34s. The Airborne Forces are ready. The naval task forces off the Syrian coast is being augmented. The delivery of weapons has accelerated. The bottom line is simple and obvious: the Russians are not making any threats – they are preparing for war. In fact, by now they are ready.

This leaves an important question to be asked: what would the Russians do if their still relatively small force in Syria is attacked and over-run by the Turks? Would the Russian use nuclear weapons?

At least one reporter, Robert Perry, as written the following: “A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught”. Is that really possible? Would the Russians really use nuclear weapons of things get ugly in Syria?

The Russian Military Doctrine is very clear on the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. This is the relevant paragraph:

27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against her and (or) her allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons in a way which would threaten her very existence as a state. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

There is no ambiguity here. Unless Russia is threatened as a state she will not use nuclear weapons. Some will, no doubt, say that the official military doctrine is one thing, but the reality in Syria is another one and if the Turks overrun Khmeimin Russia will have no other option than to use nukes. There is a precedent for that kind of logic: when the US deployed the 82nd Airborne in Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Shield the Pentagon fully understood that if the much larger Iraqi army invaded Saudi Arabia the 82nd would be destroyed. It was hoped that the USAF and USN could provide enough air sorties to stop the Iraqi advance, but if not it was understood that tactical nuclear weapons would be used. The situation in Syria is different.

For one thing, the Russian task force in Syria is not an infantry tripwire force like the 82nd in Iraq. The terrain and the opposing forces are also very different. Second, the Russian contingent in Syria can count on the firepower and support of the Russian Navy in the Caspian and Mediterranean and the Russian Aerospace Forces from Russia proper. Last but not least, the Russians can count in the support of the Syrian military, Iranian forces, Hezbollah and, probably, t he Syrian Kurds who are now openly joing the 4+1 alliance (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah) turning it into a 4+2 alliance I suppose.

There is one important feature of this 4+2 alliance which ought to really give the Turks a strong incentive to be very careful before taking any action: every member of this 4+2 alliance has an extensive military experience, a much better one than the Turkish military. The modern Turkish military is much more similar to the Israeli military in 2006 – it has a great deal of experience terrorizing civilians and it is not a force trained to fight “real” wars. There is a very real risk for the Turks that if they really invade Syria they might end up facing the same nightmare as the Israelis did when they invaded Lebanon in 2006.

In the meantime, the Russian backed Syrian forces are still advancing. Since the beginning of their counter-offensive the Syrians have succeeded in recapturing all of the strategic locations in western Syria in slow and incremental steps and they are now threatening Raqqa. See for yourself:

The bottom line is this: the size and capabilities of the Russian task force in Syria has been expanding and the level of collaborations between the elements of the 4+2 alliance has been increasing. Add to this the capability to deploy a regimental-size (and fully mechanized) Airborne force in Latakia if needed, and you will begin to see that the Turks would be taking a major risk if they attacked Russian forces even if Russia does not threaten the use of tactical nukes. In fact, I don’t see any scenario short of a massive US/NATO attack under which Russia would use her tactical nuclear weapons.

Frankly, this situation is far from resolved. It is no coincidence that just when a ceasefire was supposed to come into effect two terrorist attacks in Turkey are oh-so-conveniently blamed on the Kurds. It sure looks like somebody is trying hard to set Turkey on a collision course with Russia, doesn’t it?

Making predictions about what the Turks and their Saudi friends will do makes no sense. We are clearly dealing with two regimes which are gradually “losing it”: they are lashing out at everybody (including their US patrons), they are terrified of their own minorities (Kurds and Shia) and their propensity for violence and terror is only matched by their inability in conventional warfare. Does that remind you of somebody else?

Of course! The Ukronazis fit this picture perfectly. Well, guess what, they are dreaming of forming an anti-Russian alliance with the Turks now. Amazing no? Just imagine what a Ukrainian-Turkish-Saudi alliance would look like: a real life “Islamo-Fascist” gang of thugs combining hateful fanaticism, corruption, incompetence, violence, strident nationalism and military incompetence. A toxic combination for sure, but not a viable one.

One of the most important books about post 9/11 war and peace will likely be one of the least read books published in recent times.

War sells; peace does not.

War has its own Public Relations (PR) agencies, its own state-subsidized industry, and its own mythology.  Peace does not.

The cowboy stories of “good guys” versus “bad guys” have been promulgated and exploited by the West and its agencies (and blindly accepted by media “consumers”) to such a degree, that the truth has literally been inverted.  White is Black, and Black is White.

Not only is Canada at least partly responsible for mass murder, the total destruction of foreign countries  , and waves of refugees,  but we are paying a price at home in terms of lost freedoms, and increasing impoverishment. Today’s Illegal wars of aggression are a plague on humanity that, at best, enrich the transnational oligarch class, as they reduce target countries to ashes.

But the lies are smothering the truth.

For example, we live in a world where, on the one hand, we profess to be fighting ISIS, even as sustainable evidence has shouted for years that ISIS and all the terrorists invading Syria, including the “moderates”, are Western proxies.

Prof. Tim Anderson clearly explains in the Preface to his recent e-book, The Dirty War On Syria:   “Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory.”

Our repeated failures to diagnose the root causes of our current dystopia is the basis of our degeneracy.  And the root causes include psychological operations (psy ops).

The age-old military strategy of false flag terrorism has triggered our expertly disguised degeneracy.   False flag terrorism involves the false attribution of a crime to a designated enemy, and most, if not all wars, are triggered by false flag terrorism.

Thus the book, Another French False Flag?|Bloody Tracks From Paris To San Bernardino, Edited and Introduced by Kevin Barrett should be a “must read” for anyone attempting to understand, and act on, the current state of permanent war afflicting humanity.

The book is actually a compilation of essays from a host of prominent public intellectuals, all of whom, with the notable exception of two, elaborate upon the tactics of false flag deceptions that are herding masses of people to embrace both racism, and permanent war:

• GIlad Atzmon
• Rasheedal Hajj abu Mutahhar
• Ajamu Baraka
• Kevin Barrett
• Ole Dammegard
• A.K. Dewdney
• Philip Giraldi
• Anthony Hall
• Zaid Hamid
• Imran N. Hosein
• Kujahid Kamran
• Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei
• Barry Kissin
• Nick Kollerstrom
• Stephen Lendman
• Henry Makow
• Brandon Martinez
• Gearoid O Colmain
• Ken O’Keefe
• James Petras
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Catherine Shakdam
• Alain Soral
• Robert David Steele
• James Tracey
• Eric Walberg

Another French False Flag?|Bloody Tracks From Paris To San Bernardino analyzes the root causes of synthetic terror events (ie false flags) and puts the onus on state authorities to prove the theorists wrong – which they have yet to do – through judicial public inquiries. Straw man arguments and “conspiracy theory” smears are becoming increasingly stale.

If the masses want peace and a “peace dividend”, where tax dollars are actually spent to improve their lives, local economies, anad a return to democracy, then Barrett’s book is a “must read”.  

If, on the other hand, we want the status quo of domestic police-state legislation, ruined economies,  destroyed countries, and an overseas holocaust perpetrated by a globalized cabal of criminal warmongers, then the book would be best left unopened.

Let’s hope that humanity’s better nature prevails.  A first step is the truth.

We [the United States] spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. … Obviously, it was a mistake… George W. Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East…

—They [President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney] lied… They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Donald Trump (1946- ), during a CBS News GOP presidential debate, on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016.

[George W. Bush] wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

—But the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.

Richard Dearlove (1945- ) Head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), (in ‘Downing Street memo’, July 23, 2002).

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Dick Cheney (1941- ), comment made at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Spinning the possible possession of WMDs as a threat to the United States in the way they did is, in my opinion, tantamount to intentionally deceiving the American people.

Gen. Hugh Shelton (1942- ), former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, (in his memoirs ‘Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior’, 2010)

We [the USA] went to war [in Iraq] not just against the Iraqi forces and insurgent groups but also against a large part of the Arab world, scores and scores of millions…It is a strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq… [The Iraq war] is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.

Gen. William E. Odom (1932-2008), in a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 18, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has rendered a great service to the truth and to historians in stating publicly, on Saturday, February 13, 2016, what most people by now know, i.e. that the US-led war of aggression against Iraq, in March 2003, was not only illegal under international law, it was also an exercise in pure deceptive propaganda, and it was promoted thanks to well-documented lies, fabrications and forgeries.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

I personally published a book in early 2003 detailing how the Bush-Cheney administration, with the help of pro-Israel neocons in the higher echelons of the U.S. government, built a case for war under false pretenses.

The publishing house ‘Les Intouchables’ in Montreal, initially published the book in Canada, in French, under the title of ‘Pourquoi Bush veut la guerre’. It was then published in the U.S., by Infinity Publishing, in English, under the title ‘The New American Empire’. The book was also published in Europe by l’Harmattan in Paris under the title ‘Le Nouvel Empire Américain’, and later on translated into Turkish by Nova Publishing in Ankara, under the title ‘Yeni Amerikan Imparatorlu›u’.

The machinations and deceptions behind the disastrous war against Iraq, which have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and created millions of refugees, and which has completely destabilized the entire Middle East, constitute therefore a topic that I have been studying for many years.

It is no surprise that I was pleased to hear Mr. Trump forcefully conveying the truth to the American people, even though those who have engaged in war crimes under the Nuremberg Charter and the United Nations Charter have never been indicted for gross negligence and duplicity—if not outright treason—let alone prosecuted. Worse still, there has never been a serious public inquiry into this sordid episode at the beginning of the 21^st Century and how the Bush-Cheney administration planned a pre-meditated military attack against Iraq in order to bring about a political “regime change” in that country.

Let us summarize the sad series of events that have led to what American General William Odom has dubbed “the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history”. We may add that this has also led to a great disaster for the Middle East populations, and it could also prove to have been a disaster for Europe and the world as a whole, if the current mess in that part of the world were to lead to World War III.

1- DECEPTION: When George W. Bush took power in January 2001, his Treasury Secretary, Paul H. O’Neill (1935- ), the former CEO of Alcoa, recalls that the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was raised by Bush during the very first cabinet meeting of the new administration. In O’Neill’s biography written by journalist Ron Suskind and titled The Price of Loyalty, it is stated that George W. Bush fully intended to invade Iraq and was desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein. As Mr. Suskind writes it, there was even a Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts”, which included a map of potential areas in Iraq for oil exploration. Such a detailed plan for a U.S.-led military take-over of Iraq had never been mentioned during the 2000 U.S. presidential election, let alone debated.

However, a pro-Israel neoconservative think-tank, The Project for the New American Century, had drafted a blueprint for regime change in Iraq as early as September 2000. The fundamental goal was to secure access to Iraq’s oil reserves and remove a potential enemy to the state of Israel. This think-tank, founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, was mainly run by vice-president Dick Cheney; by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld; by Paul Wolfowitz, (Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Defense Department); by George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida; and by Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy.

Their document about Iraq was entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century”. It stated clearly that: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”. It was this plan that the newly elected Bush-Cheney administration obviously intended to implement in secret, eight months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It is also most relevant to mention that the document on Iraq mentioned above was mimicking a previous report written in 1996 for the Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli government and titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The latter outlined a strategy for the state of Israel in the Middle East in these terms:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq –an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right –as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

In 2001, the Bush-Cheney administration seemed to have made its own the proposed strategy.

2- POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE: To what extent was the Bush-Cheney administration negligent in not preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks? This is a legitimate question, considering that the George W. Bush White House received, on Monday August 6, 2001, 36 days before the terrorist attacks, a confidential report by the CIA entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”. Mr. Bush was then on a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and no special security steps seem to have been taken to alert various authorities of the threat.

3- A PARALLEL GOVERNMENT: Early on, the new Bush-Cheney administration established a special bureaucratic agency for intelligence gathering, propaganda and war preparations. This was the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plan (OSP) placed under the supervision of Paul Wolfowitz (image right), the Deputy Secretary of Defense. It was designed, as reported by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh, to circumvent the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, and to serve as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and its possible connection with al-Qaeda. That is also where various fake arguments were invented to steer the United States into a war against Iraq. Douglas Feith, a defense undersecretary, ran the shadow agency with the assistance of William Luti, a former navy officer and an ex-aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Something that should have been investigated, but has not been, is how some Israeli generals had free access to the OSP, as reported by Karen Kwiatkowski who worked in that agency.

4- WAR PROPAGANDA: After 9/11, few Americans were blaming Iraq for the terrorist attacks, since none of the 19 terrorists involved had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks of 2001 were affiliated with the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda. Fifteen out of 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, and the other 2 came from Egypt and Lebanon. None were from Iraq. And their training camps had been in Afghanistan.

That is why in polls taken soon after Sept. 11, 2001, only 3 percent of Americans mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein as the dark forces behind the attacks. Obviously, such a perception had to be changed if the Bush-Cheney administration were to start a war with Iraq. That is when the fear of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the possible links of Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda were invented, with the active assistance of neocon media. By September 2003, the propaganda had worked so well that, according to a Washington Post poll, 69 percent of Americans had come to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda, even though there had been no proof of such a link between the two. Such is the force of government propaganda when the mass media collaborate in the exercise.

This propaganda was instrumental in building a case for a war with Iraq, without regard to factual evidence. History will reckon that the United States did not retaliate against Saudi Arabia, a country that had a lot to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but it did react viciously against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

All these facts are well documented and corroborated. Future historians will have numerous sources to establish the historical truth.

Conclusion

The fact that presidential candidate Donald Trump has alerted the American people to the treachery used by the Bush-Cheney administration to go to war against Iraq is a welcome development. Undoubtedly, the Iraq War has unleashed untold destruction and misery in Iraq and in the entire Middle East. And the sequels to the initial disaster continue today, thirteen years after the 2003 U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq.

The only recent comparable historical event, when a powerful country invaded militarily another weaker country, was the decision by the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, thus plunging Europe into chaos for many years. Let us hope that the current turmoil in the Middle East, with so many countries conducting military operations in the devastated countries of Iraq and Syria, will not lead to even greater catastrophes.

Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”,

Please visit the book site at: http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/

and his blog at:

http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.htm

To write to the author: [email protected]

Washington has requested Moscow not to bomb areas of Northern Syria where US Special Forces are being deployed. These areas are under the jurisdiction of  so-called “moderate opposition” rebels who are supported by the US and its allies.  

The areas in question pertain to pockets of Northern Syria in which various US-NATO supported jihadist groups including the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Nusrah are fighting Syrian government forces (SAA) and their allies.  These terrorist pockets are protected by the US-led coalition and Turkey:  

The Pentagon has asked Russia to stay away from parts of northern Syria where US special operations troops are training local fighters [i.e. terrorists including the Islamic State ] to combat the Islamic State group [the opposition rebels are allies of ISIS, ISIS is supported by the US and has special forces within its ranks], military officials said Thursday. The acknowledgement is significant because the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed it is not cooperating with Moscow as the two powers lead separate air campaigns in war-ravaged Syria…. (Al Monitor, AFP Report, February 18 2016)

– –

The advisory acknowledges US military presence inside Syria. Washington confirms that US Special Forces and CIA are operating within the ranks of the “Moderate Opposition”. 

Washington’s objective is twofold. First, “officially” it wants to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia as well prevent US casualties.  That’s the substance of the official  advisory. It is not the main objective.

Second: it is using the pretext of avoiding military confrontation with Russia (and US casualties) as a means to restraining Russia’s bombing campaign: Washington’s main objective is to protect remaining US sponsored terrorist positions in Northern Syria including those of the ISIS from Russian airstrikes. 

Click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s latest book from Global Research

*      *       *

The advisory is tantamount to asking Russia not to bomb the “moderate terrorists” who are supported by US forces. In fact this was the initial position adopted by Washington at the outset of the Russian bombing campaign against the Islamic State in late September 2015.  The Obama administration blamed Vladimir Putin of “deliberately targeting  US backed forces” in Syria (i.e. moderate terrorists) rather than US Special Forces.

Washington’s concern (from a strategic standpoint) is to protect the terrorists’ positions  rather than their own forces. 

In fact, what was at stake in mid October 2015 was that Russia was killing the “good guys” namely “CIA trained rebels” whom Moscow had “mistakenly” categorized as terrorists.

According to a US official in an interview with Fox News:

“Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.”

 Source: October 14, 2015,  FoxNews.com

Officially, America now has “boots on the ground” operating within the ranks of  various Al Qaeda affiliated “opposition” groups as well as within the ISIS in violation of Syrian sovereignty.

The special forces are in permanent liaison with US-NATO.

The Pentagon advisory requests Russia not to target US Special Forces in “broad areas” of Northern Syria, which is tantamount to restraining Russia airstrikes against the terrorists supported by the US-led coalition:  

Lieutenant General Charles Brown, who commands the US air forces in the Middle East, said US officials had asked Moscow to avoid “broad areas” in northern Syria [still under control of the terrorists] “to maintain a level of safety for our forces that are on the ground.”

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Russia had honored the request, and stressed the Pentagon only provided broad geographic descriptions of where the US troops are, not their precise location.

[The Russian military knows where US forces are operating, i.e. in the ranks of various “opposition”  groups fighting government forces]

The Pentagon last year said it was sending about 50 special operations forces to work with anti-IS fighters in Syria though officials have said next to nothing about their whereabouts and progress since.

[The number of US forces on the ground is larger, these Pentagon figures do not include mercenary forces hired by private contractors operating within terrorist ranks]

The United States has since August 2014 led an international coalition against the IS group in Iraq and Syria. [This is a lie; amply documented the US and its allies including Turkey and Saudi Arabia are protecting the Islamic State]

Russia entered the Syria conflict in September, when it began bombing rebels opposed to President Bashar al-Assad. Russia says it is attacking the IS group and other “terrorists.”

… The Pentagon has held a series of “deconfliction” talks with Russian counterparts to outline procedures in case of a mishap (Al Monitor, AFP Report, emphasis added)

It is worth noting that in mid-January in response to Russia’s airstrikes and the defeat of the US-NATO sponsored terrorist opposition forces, the Pentagon announced a new plan to train up to 7,000 new rebels inside Syria “as part of an effort to secure Turkey’s southern border”. This plan coordinated with Turkey would consist in creating a so-called safe-zone in Northern Syria. (WSJ, January 15, 2016 ).

According to a Secret Pentagon document, the ultimate objective “was” to create an Islamic State Caliphate (Salafist Principality) in Northern Syria.

Global Research has developed an archive of more than 1000 articles on Syria, which document beyond doubt Washington’s support of Al Qaeda affiliated opposition groups in Syria as well as the Islamic State.

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research Publishers, Montreal

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $14.00 

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

REVIEWS:

“Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth.”

Os ministros da Defesa da Otan decidiram “reforçar a presença na parte oriental de nossa Aliança”. Isto serve para “nos defender das ameaças crescentes provenientes da Rússia”, esclareceu o secretário estadunidense da Defesa, Ash Carter.

Com esse objetivo os Estados Unidos quadruplicam os financiamentos para “a iniciativa de ressegurança da Europa”, que com uma rotação de forças (cerca de seis mil soldados), permitirá a realização de mais exercícios militares da Otan (os mais de 300 efetuados em 2015 não foram suficientes), a potencialização de aeroportos, o pré-posicionamento de armamentos pesados, o deslocamento permanente para o Leste de unidades blindadas. Isto, sublinhou Carter, “permitirá aos EUA formar na Europa uma força armada de alta capacidade, a implantar rapidamente no teatro regional”.

Ao acusar a Rússia de “desestabilizar a ordem e a segurança europeias”, os EUA e a Otan reabriram a frente oriental, introduzindo a Europa numa nova guerra fria, desejada sobretudo por Washington para quebrar as relações entre a Rússia e a União Europeia, prejudiciais aos interesses estadunidenses.

Ao mesmo tempo, os EUA e a Otan preparam outras operações na frente meridional. Em Bruxelas o chefe do Pentágono “acolheu” (considerando a Europa como a sua casa) os ministros da defesa da “Coalizão global contra o EI (o chamado Estado Islâmico)”, de que fazem parte sob o comando estadunidense, com a Itália, a Arábia Saudita e outros patrocinadores do terrorismo de “marca islamita”. A reunião lançou um impreciso “plano da campanha militar” na Síria e no Iraque. Lá as coisas vão mal para a coalizão, não porque o dito EI esteja vencendo, mas porque está perdendo: apoiadas pela Rússia, as forças governamentais sírias estão liberando crescentes partes do território ocupado pelo autodenominado EI e outras formações, que recuam também no Iraque. Depois de fingir durante anos combater o chamado EI, fornecendo-lhe armas por debaixo do pano através da Turquia, os EUA e seus aliados pedem atualmente o cessar-fogo por “razões humanitárias”. Em substância, eles pedem que o governo sírio pare de libertar do proclamado EI o seu próprio território, porque – segundo declarou o secretário de Estado John Kerry, invertendo os fatos – “quanto mais Assad conquista território, mais ele cria terroristas”. Ao mesmo tempo, a Otan reforça as “medidas de ressegurança” da Turquia, que visa a ocupar uma parte do território sírio na zona de fronteira.

No Norte da África, a coalizão sob condução dos EUA, se prepara para ocupar, sob o pretexto de as libertar do EI, as zonas costeiras da Líbia mais importantes econômica e estrategicamente. A intensificação dos voos a partir do hub aéreo de Pisa, limítrofe à base estadunidense de Camp Darby, indica que a operação “sob condução italiana” já começou com o transporte de armas para as bases de onde será lançada.

No mesmo quadro estratégico se enquadra a decisão dos ministros da Defesa, “sob pedido conjunto da Alemanha, da Grécia e da Turquia”, de deslocar para o Mar Egeu o Segundo Grupo Naval Permanente da Otan, hoje sob comando alemão, que vem de concluir “operações ampliadas com a marinha turca”.

A missão oficial da frota de guerra “não é deter ou repelir as embarcações de refugiados, mas fornecer informações contra o tráfico de seres humanos”, colaborando com a agência Frontex da União Europeia. Com o mesmo objetivo “humanitário”, são também enviados, por demanda dos EUA, aviões radares Awacs, centros de comando em voo para a gestão do campo de batalha.

“A mobilização atlântica é um bom sinal”, comenta “Il Fatto Quotidiano” de 12 de fevereiro (1), lembrando que “não é a primeira vez que a Aliança se engaja em uma ação humanitária”. Exatamente como na Iugoslávia, no Afeganistão e na Líbia.

Manlio Dinucci

Fonte: Il Manifesto

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho, para Resistência.

(1) Nota : “Il Fato Quotidiano” é considerado como “jornal de esquerda”.

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo

5,000 ISIS Militants Trained in Syria and Iraq Walk Free in Europe – Europol

By RT, February 20 2016

Between 3,000 and 5,000 so-called ‘foreign fighters’ – EU citizens trained in Islamic state terror camps – have returned to Europe and pose a “completely new challenge,” according the continent’s top police chief.

US-NATO’s “Moderate Opposition”: An Apocalyptic Vision For Syria

By Mnar Muhawesh, February 20 2016

In the first episode of MintPress News’ “Behind the Headline,” MPN editor-in-chief and host Mnar Muhawesh starts by breaking down the supposedly “moderate” Syrian opposition slated to lead peace talks to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis.

A few days ago some European alternative press got excited about the “disclosing” to Hungarian parliament members on February 10, by prime minister Viktor Orbán, of a so-called secret pact between Germany and Turkey planning to transfer from Turkey, for distribution within the European Union, of 400,000 to 500,000 more Syrian refugees. 

It is not a scoop since the same Viktor Orbán had already declared on December 2 that he was expecting the announcement of this pact in a matter of days, although knowing that, as shown when the question was mentioned again on November 11 at the La Valette summit (and already at the difficult European Council of October 15), it would be poorly accepted.

It is not something new either. In its memo 15-5777, handed over by president Jean-Claude Juncker to president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on October 5 and published the next day, the European Commission had summarised the Action Plan prepared by a joint Turco-European commission after the informal European Council of September 23 (and maybe conceived since the dinner of May 17), and not disclosed so far, except for the clauses that have been included in the agreement of November 29. This memo, given to the chiefs of State as a short agenda for the European Council of October 15 and 16 (which would be disbanded in the evening of the 15 because of disputes), mentions some “EU resettlement schemes and programmes which could enable refugees in Turkey to enter the EU in an orderly manner”.

It is indeed not a German-Turkish agreement, even though Germany’s chancelor Angela Merkel, sent to Turkey on October 18 to negotiate in the name of the European Union, may have let president Erdoğan believe that this was again a German initiative, like the August 24 call to massive illegal intrusion, that French president François Hollande had precisely come to support in Berlin (rather than in Brussels).

The pact which is being commented upon currently has, unfortunately, nothing German, it is a clause of a Turkey -EU  agreement and the destination of the migrants (they are legally not refugees) that Turkey is supposed to provide is not Germany but the entire European Union, according to the distribution key negotiated in May, those famous quotas which were initially giving only 14,17% of the “illegal migrants” to France, who therefore insisted to get, in the end, 20% (Germany reserved 25%).

This agreement is not really a secret either. Lauriane Lizé-Galabbé had publicly denounced it on October 8, three days only after European presidents Jean-Claude Juncker (EU Commission), Donald Tusk (EU Council) and Martin Schultz (EU Parliament) had, in person, notified their acceptance to president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Stratediplo, which only comments open source information, mentioned it on October 16 (sommet de dupes), and noted on November 29, after the official signature of the agreement which did not specify any figures, that it was unclear “by how much had been raised the promise of installation in the European Union of the half-million migrants to be sent by Turkey” (victoire turque ou capitulation uniopéenne ?).

The figure given by prime minister Orbán is probably outdated. The details of this proposal were from before the Russian intervention in Syria and included giving Turkey a strip of territory in Northern Syria, as already promised by the United States on July 27. Nevertheless after the Russian intervention the European Union was not able any more to deliver this strip of Syrian territory and therefore Turkey asked for more in compensation.

Although until the end of September the European Union was considering offering to Turkey only one billion euros, the oral proposal of the three European presidents on October 5 was already up to three billion (to compensate for the impossibility to offer a piece of Syria) even though president Juncker claimed until the European Council of October 15 that he had only proposed one billion, and by the way his negotiator Merkel was forced, in Ankara on October 18, to accept the principle of a yearly renewal of these three billions (the agreement signed on November 29 would state an initial amout of three billions “subjet to reexamination”).

After the cold reception of this idea at the European Council of October 15, especially in the Višegrad group, the resistants like Viktor Orbán have probably not been kept informed of the progress of the negotiations with Turkey, and no figure was specified in the agreement signed on November 29.

But it is highly likely that the half-million “refugees from Syria” that the European Union wanted to propose, on October 5, to go get in Turkey, didn’t suffice either to compensate the impossibility to give Turkey a portion of Syria. Since the billion euros offered became three billions (yearly), it wouldn’t be surprising that the half-million “refugees” became a million and a half, which is more or less the number of real Syrians in Turkey (who will cease being refugees as soon as they pass in another country). Of course the certification of Syrian nationality relies on Turkey, since the European countries which severed all diplomatic contacts with Syria are unable to distinguish a real passport issued in Syria from a false one printed in Turkey.

Stratediplo  (draft translation from French)

www.stratediplo.blogspot.com

“Canada in Africa is a haunting chronicle of the bloodletting, destabilization and pillaging of Africa by agents and governments of Canada.

This should be required reading for every human with a conscience.” -Nnimmo Bassey, winner of the Right Livelihood Award and author of To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa. As quoted in Yves Engler’s book Canada in Africa

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:09)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Canada is typically portrayed, domestically and abroad, as a force for good in Africa and the rest of the world.

On its website, the government of Canada boasts of promoting “democracy, governance, human rights and the rule of law,” enhancing “African peace and security,” and  “supporting international development initiatives.”

Do these sentiments reflect reality?

Yves Engler would seem to disagree. He is a Montreal based political analyst and the author of several books on Canadian foreign policy, including The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009), The Ugly Canadian — Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy (2012), and his latest, Canada In Africa — 300 Years of Aid and Exploitation (2015).

In this last volume, Engler details how successive Canadian companies and governments have been implicated in undermining the sovereignty, welfare and rights of the African people to the benefit of wealthy Canadian interests. Canadian involvement in Africa has included:

• Profiting from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade
• Assisting in the European colonization of Africa
• Supporting and promoting neoliberal “structural adjustment” program schemes which encourage privatization and benefit Canadian companies
• Brokering Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPAs) with Burkino Faso and other countries which undermine popular control of domestic economic development to the benefit of Canadian mining companies
• Tax evasion by companies operating in African countries
• Supporting the overthrow of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lamumba
• Canadian Mining companies carrying out hazardous activities in Tanzania and elsewhere while intimidating and abusing the local population through the security personnel they employ.
• Support for the 2006 US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia

Yves Engler went on a book tour in September of 2015. The following video captures his September 29 talk at the University of Winnipeg. (Footage courtesy of Video-grapher Paul Graham) 

During this week’s Global Research News Hour, Yves Engler expands on these critiques of Canadian foreign policy in Africa. As well, he comments on the recent political turmoil brewing in Haiti, and provides his perspective on what changes, if any, have resulted from the replacement of the reviled Harper government with the much more popular Trudeau government.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:09)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

In the first episode of MintPress News’ “Behind the Headline,” MPN editor-in-chief and host Mnar Muhawesh starts by breaking down the supposedly “moderate” Syrian opposition slated to lead peace talks to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis.

When peace talks were arranged to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis, there were some questionable parties slated to sit at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Before those talks were postponed in February as fighting escalated in Syria, media buzzed, describing theSyrian opposition leading the talks as “moderate.” Yet there was little mention of who these groups really are, who’s behind them, and their agenda beyond “get rid of Assad.”

So here’s what you need to know about these so-called “moderates”:

The Syrian opposition leading the talks is known as the Syrian High Negotiations Committee — a carefully crafted, non-descript banner, for sure.

That coalition is more complex than its name indicates: It aims to unite the thousands of opposition fighters. But those following the situation in Syria know very well that the Syrian opposition is now mostly made up of armed jihadists vying for power and who have been acting as proxies to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar since 2011 to overthrow the Syrian government.

Many of these “moderate” rebels have ripped Syria apart through sectarianism and violence. And they’ve done it all with weaponry and financial support from competing proxy nations. Further, intelligence officials from NATO member states like the US., Britain, France and Turkey were on the ground, training so-called “moderate” rebels months before the Syrian revolt erupted.

And to top it all off, this coalition to unite these foreign-supplied rebels is Saudi-backed and -sponsored. It wasn’t born in Syria; it was assembled in Riyadh.

The chief negotiator and the spokesperson for the High Negotiations Committee and the groups they represent should raise even more concern:

Salem Muslet, who worked as deputy director for the Gulf Research Center in United Arab Emirates from 1998-2011 (the year the Syrian revolt started), is the vice president of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, which receives weapons and funding from a list of nations including U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian opposition chief Riad Hijab, right, next to High Negotiations Committee (HNC) spokesman Salem al-Meslet, left,  at press conference after Syrian peace talks, PresidentWilson hotel, Geneva, Feb. 3, 2016. (Martial Trezzini/Keystone via AP)

Syrian opposition chief Riad Hijab, right, standing next to High Negotiations Committee (HNC) spokesman Salem al-Meslet, left, as they attend a press conference after Syrian peace talks, at the President Wilson hotel in Geneva, Switzerland, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016. (Martial Trezzini/Keystone via AP)

The group was formed in Doha, Qatar, not Syria, to provide its “international donors with a legitimate, unified channel for all aid to the rebellion by acting as a moderate umbrella group… to govern Syria after Assad is ousted.”

The group’s first president, Sunni Cleric Moaz al-Khatib, described that as meaning they are beholden to their foreign backers.

Al-Khatib resigned in March 2013, lamenting that, foreign powers were placing too many conditions on aid to opposition and armed rebel groups, and were trying to manipulate events for their own interests.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Alloush ,the chief negotiator, represents Jaysh al-Islam. An open ally of al-Qaida’s arm in Syria, the Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam is one of the most brutal Sunni Salafist rebel groups operating inside Syria. And it receives funding, arms and other support from Saudi Arabia.

Jaysh al-Islam, also known as the Islamic Front, is known for mass executions, use of starvation as a war tool (as seen in Madaya), kidnappings, pillaging and alleged rapings. They’ve publicly stated that once they oust Assad, they’ll proceed to cleanse the nation of Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Zoroastrians and Arab Christians as they establish a Salafist Islamic state. It’s no wonder the group has been compared to ISIS.

With the talks postponed, it doesn’t even matter whether they proceed as long as negotiators are working with violent armed groups and rebels like those under the umbrella of the High Negotiations Committee. Besides being counterproductive, it’s the same policy NATO members and the U.N. have adopted in Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan, among others. And in each of those cases, those efforts sunk these nations further into civil war and chaos.

The High Negotiations Committee, and the groups it represents, work in the interests of foreign nations, not in the interests or the will of the Syrian people.

Don’t misunderstand — Syria is in desperate need for peace talks.

The ongoing crisis has led to the deaths of over 250,000 people and 11 million refugees. Syrians are in the impossible position of having to choose between living in a warzone, being targeted by groups like ISIS and competing rebels groups and the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown, or whether to fare dangerous waters to reach safety.

Smoke rises over battle-scarred Saif Al Dawla district, Aleppo, October 2, 2012. (AP Photo)

Smoke rises over a battle-scarred Saif Al Dawla district in Aleppo, Syria, on October 2, 2012. (AP Photo)

But anything resembling “peace” talks simply cannot proceed with jihadists and representatives of foreign nations with a blatantly genocidal, apocalyptic vision for the future of the country.

If our leaders truly care about ending terrorism maybe they should start by not participating in it.

And if our leaders truly care about democracy and freedom, then they’d allow the Syrian people choose their own fate without supplying weapons and meddling in their affairs. Maybe, for once, they’d even put people before profits.

Like most peace talks, the goal isn’t ultimately peace. These talks represent little more than political theater to subdue the masses against the tragic situation that we — Western governments and the Gulf Arab nations — allowed to unfold.

This segment of the Behind the Headlines is part of the first episode of the show.  The episode can be viewed in it’s entirety below:

Mnar Muhawesh is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups. She started her career as an independent multimedia journalist covering Midwest and national politics while focusing on civil liberties and social justice issues posting her reporting and exclusive interviews on her blog MintPress, which she later turned MintPress into the global news source it is today. In 2009, Muhawesh also became the first American woman to wear the hijab to anchor/report the news in American media. Muhawesh is also a wife and mother of a rascal four year old boy, juggling her duties as a CEO and motherly tasks successfully as supermom. Contact Mnar at [email protected]. Follow Mnar on Twitter at @mnarmuh 

In 2011, Obama announced his Asia pivot, prioritizing America reasserting its Pacific presence – intending to advance its military footprint. 

The aim is challenging China’s growing economic, political and military strength, along with checking Russia – pressuring Asian nations to ally with Washington’s agenda. 

On Friday, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lie blasted Washington’s increasing militarization of the South China Sea – escalating tensions irresponsibly.

He affirmed Beijing’s intent not to militarize the Nansha Islands and surrounding waters, sovereign Chinese territory. Installing defensive missiles on the territory is its legitimate right.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Admiral John Kirby claimed Washington “see(s) no indication that (Beijing’s) militarization…stopped. (I)t’s doing nothing…to make the situation…more stable and…secure.”

Hong responded, saying regional demilitarization involves more than a single country. “There should not be double standards or multi-standards for demilitarization in the South China Sea, and the process requires joint efforts from countries in the region and beyond.”

Provocative US air and naval military patrols near Chinese territorial waters and airspace, along with joint exercises with area allies, increase regional tensions and instability.

Hong explained US actions are “the real militarization of the South China Sea,” risking Sino/American confrontation.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi reacted sharply to Western media reports, falsely alleging Beijing’s South China Sea militarization.

He stressed “limited and necessary national defense facilities on China’s territory” is its sovereign right, not provocative militarization.

Beijing’s Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun blasted US policy, saying China “expresses its serious concern over US activities to militarize the South China Sea region.”

“Such actions…would inevitably arouse suspicion,” indicating Washington intends regional “chaos.”

Yang’s remarks followed US Pacific Command head Admiral Harry Harris criticizing China’s legitimate right to pursue development in its sovereign waters.

Calling them “disputed” serves US imperial interests. Harris lied, claiming China’s “aggressive military buildup” undermines regional peace and stability.

Yang minced no words, saying “(t)he US side disregards and distorts the facts and plays up China’s military threat to sow discord between China and the littoral states in the South China Sea. We firmly oppose such actions.”

Last summer, Harris turned truth on its head, saying the South China Sea is “front and center in the tug-of-war between the majority of regional nations that want to maintain the status quo and China that wants to change it to suit its narrow self-interest.”

Washington demands Beijing halt land reclamation and development in its own territorial waters. John Kerry accused China of increasing militarization, ignoring Washington’s provocative actions worldwide.

Claiming legitimate Beijing activities threaten free navigation and area nations is typical US imperial arrogance, concealing its own increasing regional military footprint, risking possible Sino/American confrontation. Potentially confronting China or Russia militarily is sheer madness.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The Threat of Nuclear War Is Now HIGHER Than During the Soviet Era

Turkey previously shot down a Russian jet.

Now, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are threatening to invade Syria.

How dangerous could this get, in a worst case scenario?

Robert Parry – the investigative reporter who broke the Iran-Contra story for the Associated Press and Newsweek  –  wrote yesterday:

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Washington’s Blog asked one of America’s top experts on Russia – Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union – what he thought of Parry’s claim.

Cohen said:

Parry is a serious man [“serious” is the highest compliment that an insider can give to someone]. I cannot say it will lead to nuke war, but it is very dangerous, as is quadrupling US/NATO forces near Russia’s borders.

Pavel Felgenhauer – a leading Russian military analyst – also believes that a nuclear war is “very likely” to arise from Russia’s skirmishes with Turkey in Syria.

Last December, U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard – a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Iraq war veteran, and Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard – warned that U.S. policy in Syria could lead to a nuclear war. And see this.

Also in December, retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, chairman emeritus of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, retired Brigadier General John H. Johns, professor emeritus from US National Defense University, and Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations,  penned an article in Foreign Policy calling for US-Russia cooperation to de-escalate current tensions and diffuse the increasing worrisome nuclear blustering.

American security expert Bruce Blair – a former nuclear-missile launch officer – notes that Turkey’s downing of the Russian warplane at the Syrian-Turkish border “fits a pattern of brinkmanship and inadvertence that is raising tensions and distrust between Russia and US-led NATO,” and that “this escalation could morph by design or inadvertence into a nuclear threat.”

Blair writes that the threat of nuclear war is higher now that during the Soviet era:

Russia has shortened the launch time from what it was during the Cold War. Today, top military command posts in the Moscow area can bypass the entire human chain of command and directly fire by remote control rockets in silos and on trucks as far away as Siberia in only 20 seconds.

Why should this concern us? History shows that crisis interactions, once triggered, take on a life of their own. Military encounters multiply; they become more decentralized, spontaneous and intense. Safeguards are loosened and unfamiliar operational environments cause accidents and unauthorized actions. Miscalculations, misinterpretations and loss of control create a fog of crisis out of which a fog of war may emerge. In short, the slope between the low-level military encounters, the outbreak of crisis and escalation to a nuclear dimension is a steep and slippery one.

(Indeed, the U.S. and Soviets came within seconds of all-out nuclear war on numerous occasions. Andonly the courage of U.S. and Soviet individuals to say no when their superiors told them to fire nuclear weapons – in the face of mistaken readings – saved the planet from nuclear war.)

Russia expert Stephen Cohen agrees that the risks of nuclear war are much higher than people know,telling the Commonwealth Club last year that the threat of nuclear war with Russia is now greater than it was with the Soviets.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry agrees that the risk of nuclear war is higher than during the Soviet era.

Postscript:  Top Russian, American and Polish experts also warn that continued fighting in Ukraine could lead to nuclear war.

At his Friday rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, the billionaire racist and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump held forth on a variety of policy issues—including the Affordable Care Act, the intransigence of Congress, and Japan’s devaluation of the yen—before diving, headfirst, into an email chain hoax involving Muslims, pig blood, and a World War I-era Army officer. The relevant section starts at 33:00 in the video above; you can listen to secondary audio, captured by Gawker’s Gabrielle Bluestone (and beginning at 8:00), in the SoundCloud player below:

The reporter Benjy Sarlin, who also attended the rally, recounted what exactly happened for MSNBC:

Trump repeated—favorably—an apparent myth about how General John Pershing summarily executed dozens of Muslim prisoners in the Philippines with tainted ammunition during a guerrilla war against the occupying United States. “He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump said. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, okay?” …

The moral of the tale, according to Trump: “We better start getting tough and we better start getting vigilant, and we better start using our heads or we’re not gonna have a country, folks.”

 

Sarlin notes that the tale of General Pershing’s mass execution of 49 Muslims has been widely discredited by the website Snopes, which gathered historical records of his tour of duty in the Philippines, a cluster of islands in the western Pacific Ocean that were ruled by the United States in the first half of the 20th century. The false anecdote apparently arose from Pershing’s involvement in the Moro Rebellion, a fourteen-year conflict between the Moros, an indigenous Muslim group in the southern Philippines, and the U.S. military.

The most unsettling thing about Trump’s aside isn’t that it’s false, though. It’s that he’s indulging an openly racist murder fantasy—in which an American military officer uses dead Muslims he had killed with bullets dipped in the blood of swine (an animal whose meat and other byproducts are considered impure, and thus forbidden from consumption, by the Qur’an) to terrorize many more Muslims—in order to convince South Carolinians to vote for him.

Presidential candidates are certainly not immune to promulgating fake Internet memes. Nor has Trump been friendly to Muslims, either: In the past few months alone, he’s endorsed preventing Muslims from entering the United States, shuttering a certain number of mosques (while placing the remainder under surveillance), and registering every practicing Muslim in a national database. In that sense, today’s utterance differed in degree, not kind: Trump will say anything, for any reason, if it benefits him. At the same time, this tale gives us a good sense of what kind of person Trump is pandering to, and what exactly such a person would believe.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to think so. In fact, Erdogan is acting like Wednesday’s explosion in the capital was a gift from God. You see, Erdogan and his fellow Islamists think that if they pin the blame for the bombing on luckless patsy,  Salih Neccar, who has links to the Kurdish YPG, then they’ll be able to convince Washington that the YPG is a terrorist organization. And if they can convince Washington that the YPG a terrorist organization,  then Obama will have to break off relations with the YPG even though the Kurdish militia has been helping the US defeat ISIS in Syria.  And if  Obama breaks off relations with the YPG, then he’ll have to depend more on good old Turkey for his footsoldiers which is just hunky-dory with Erdogan  provided that Washington meet his numerous demands, that is.

So, could a bomb blast in Ankara change the outcome of the 5 year-long war in Syria?

It certainly could, if Obama is stupid enough to fall into Erdogan’s trap. But so far that looks unlikely.

The problem with Erdogan’s rationale is that the Obama administration is not convinced that the YPG is a terrorist organization. Nor are they certain that Neccar is guilty.  More important, the US maintains a crucial alliance with  the YPG in Syria which has helped them recapture strategic cities and territory from ISIS in the northern part of the country. The militia has provided the boots on the ground the US needs to prosecute its war in Syria.  Naturally, they are not going to end a relationship like that without solid evidence that the charges are true.

And there are plenty of reasons to believe the charges aren’t true. For example, the head of the Syrian PYD, Salih Muslim, has not only denied all responsibility for the Ankara bombing, but also stated that neither he nor any of his lieutenants have any idea who the perpetrator is.  (The PYD is the political wing of the YPG)

We have never heard of this person Salih Necar,” said Muslim, after which he added, “These accusations are clearly related to Turkish attempts to intervene in Syria.

Of course, Muslim could be lying, but you have to ask yourself whether or not the bombing achieves its political objectives if the perpetrators deny responsibility?  And the answer is “No, it doesn’t.” So why lie?

Here’s more from the New York Times:

…some analysts questioned the plausibility of (Erdogan’s) accusation, since mounting such an attack would jeopardize the group’s American support.

“These allegations are unfounded — lies with no truth to them,” Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the group said via WhatsApp from Qamishli, Syria.

“We are not enemies of Turkey, and our goal is to fight Daesh inside the Syrian borders,” he added, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “We have no interest in being enemies with Turkey.”…

“Sponsoring or being involved with car bombings in Turkish cities would break its alliance structure with the U.S. and Russia,” said Michael Stephens, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security. “Neither of which the P.Y.D.-Y.P.G. wants. In short, the Y.P.G. have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in this.” (“Turkey Blames Kurdish Militia for Ankara Attack, Challenging U.S.”, New York Times)

So who is responsible for Wednesday’s terrorist attack?

While no one knows for sure, many people think the Turkish government itself might have been involved which isn’t too far fetched when you consider that this same administration was implicated in a similar incident in 2014 when the foreign minister (who is currently the Prime Minister) was caught on tape cooking up a false flag operation with the head of Turkish Intel to create a pretext for invading Syria. Sound familiar? (See here for more.)

The fact that the Erdogan administration has been involved in this type of skullduggery before suggests that they might have gone to the well one time too often.. In any event, given what we know of their past,  the members of the Turkish government should, at the very least, feature very prominently on any list of probable suspects.  Add to that the fact that there’s now tons of evidence showing that the government has been arming, training and  funding terrorists in Syria, and the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that Turkey is governed by a thoroughly untrustworthy lot of  fanatical miscreants whose spurious accusations should be taken with a very large grain of salt..   Here’s more from yesterday’s Hurriyet:

“Although the PKK and the PYD are denying it, the information from the Interior Ministry and intelligence show that they are behind [the attack],” said Erdoğan, referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD)…….

“This process will convince our friends in the international community to understand how tight the PYD and YPG’s connection to the PKK is,” Erdoğan said, repeating that Turkey had insisted on the link, submitting documents.”

(Hurriyet)

See? This is all about convincing Washington that they’ve backed the wrong horse. Erdogan wants to muscle-out the Kurds, so he can take their place as place. That way, he can achieve his dream of annexing a 10-by-70 mile-wide strip of Syrian territory just south of the Turkish border that he wants to convert into a “safe zone” to provide a sanctuary for Sunni militants. The plan will prevent the Kurds from creating a contiguous state on the Syrian side of the border and, also, it will help keep open vital supply lines for jihadist allies conducting military operations in other parts of the Syria.

The Obama administration was sympathetic to this plan at one time, but Russia’s entry into the war in late September changed everything. Now the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Iranian Quds Forces and Hezbollah are closing in on the Turkish border which has dashed any chance Turkey might have had to seize and hold Syrian territory without a direct confrontation with Russia, which Washington definitely does not want.  Bottom line: Washington has adjusted its strategy to the new reality on the ground while Turkey and the Saudis are still grasping at straws thinking the war can be won.

Sealing the border is a top priority for Moscow which pins its hopes for ending the war largely on its ability to stop the flow of Sunni fighters crossing over from Turkey.  According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:  “The key point for the ceasefire to work is a task of blocking illegal trafficking across the Turkish-Syrian border, which supports the militants.  Without closing the border it is difficult to expect the ceasefire to take place.” (The ceasefire is scheduled to begin on Friday)

So Russia is going to persist in its plan to close the border regardless of what Turkey does. At the same time, it has tried to signal to Turkey that if it goes ahead with its plan to invade Syria, there will be hell to pay. Check this out from Today’s Zaman:

A senior Russian official threatened Turkey, saying that it will face Russia and Iran if carries out a ground intervention in Syria….. Russia proved in Syria how powerful its weapons are and showed everybody that it will not hesitate to use them if necessary.”  (“Official: Turkey to face Russia, Iran if intervenes in Syria“)

Interestingly, the Russian foreign ministry delivered another chilly warning early Friday after receiving reports that  “Turkish military vehicles had crossed into an area in Syria controlled by the Kurds and were starting to dig trenches near Meidan Ekbis, a town in Aleppo province…. Dozens of Turkish military vehicles advanced 200 meters into the Syrian Kurdish region in Aleppo province on Thursday.” (ANHA news agency)

According to AMN News: ”

Asked about the implications of any ground incursion into Syria, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters: “We view Syria’s territory as the territory of a sovereign state. Any incursion into the territory of a sovereign state is illegal.” (AMN News)

The question is whether Putin will engage the Turkish military in a full-blown war just to recapture a few hundred meters of Syrian sovereign territory. I expect Putin will let the incident slide and chalk it up to “frustration” on Turkey’s part. If that’s the only victory that Erdogan requires, then it’s a price that’s worth paying. Putin has to stay focused on the big picture, and not get diverted by trivialities.

Of course, if Erdogan plans to push further into Syria, then there’s going to be trouble. After all, Moscow’s hands are tied. The only way it can hope to extricate itself from the conflict in Syria is by defeating the jihadists as quickly as possible, clearing out the hotbeds of resistance, and reestablishing security. If Turkey enters the war, that throws a wrench in everything. The tit-for-tat fighting will drag on for years, and there will probably never be a clear winner. This is exactly what Putin hopes to avoid. So, if Turkey launches an invasion and sends in ground troops, Putin will be forced to strike with everything-he’s-got to see if one, big shock and awe display of raw military power is enough to reverse the trend and send Erdogan’s legions packing. If it doesn’t work, and Turkey digs in, Syria could devolve into the mother of all quagmires, which is why we’re a little surprised that Obama is not pursuing a plan that would draw Turkey deeper into the fray, after all, Washington gains nothing strategically from its support for the YPG. In a way, the alliance makes no sense. Does Washington care about Kurdish aspirations for a homeland?

No. Does Obama want to help Putin clear the area North of Aleppo of jihadists, militants and opposition forces?

Of course not. Then what does Washington get?

Nothing.

An alliance with Erdogan, on the other hand, provides Washington with the footsoldiers it needs to fight its proxy war with Russia. It also creates a situation where Russia could get bogged down for years in a conflict that could drain its resources, undermine morale, and precipitate social unrest at home. Isn’t that exactly what Washington wants?

Indeed, it is, but there’s one glitch to the strategy that obviously has US ruling elites so worried that they have abandoned their support for any Turkish-led invasion into Syria.

What is that glitch?

It’s the fact that Turkish ground troops would require US air-cover and that, in turn, would pave the way for a military confrontation between Washington and Moscow. And that’s why Obama and Co. have scrapped the idea and moved on to Plan B.

So as reckless as one might think US foreign policy is, Washington still does not want to mix-it-up with Russia. We can all be thankful for that.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?

Yesterday we reported the good news that Russia had brokered a deal with the US to allow Humanitarian aid to finally enter the western- backed terrorist besieged villages of Kafarya and Foua.  While the sun never sets on the Madaya propaganda, these two villages have been left in the shade by mainstream media, International aid organisations, the UN and “regime change” intent Western governments.

Today, however,  we received the following distressing statement from the Specialist Hospital in al Foua:

Statement by the Specialist Hospital of Al Fua and the People of the Besieged Towns of Al Fua and Kefraya on the Recent UN Humanitarian Aid Delivery

Residents of the two towns besieged by al-Qaeda terrorist gangs received, with a great deal of hope, the news of an international agreement in Munich, regarding the facilitation of humanitarian aid deliveries to the besieged areas.  The hope came after a long-standing series of disappointments due to irresponsible behaviour, mistakes and the bad practices of the International organizations concerned.

Accumulated instances of malpractice have led us to conclude that these organisations have deliberately penalised the residents of Kafarya and Foua.

The hopes of the hungry children and the elderly patients quickly faded and were downtrodden as the roar of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent trucks arriving in our towns subsided and we saw the poor quality of the goods being delivered.  Many of the items were damaged or perished.  Many of the supplies had to be destroyed as they were useless.  Equally many of the items essential to ensure the continuation of hospital work and to meet civilian’s basic needs were simply not delivered.

We, in the only hospital in the towns, and on behalf of our suffering people, call the United Nations and its representative in Syria, Mr Staffan de Mistura, to listen to the following:

The United Nations and its affiliated organizations are not dealing realistically with the needs of the population. They seem to act in accordance with programs designed for other regions of the world that suffer from entirely different problems. Mr. de Mistura please take note that we are in Syria, in a rich and generous land surrounded by militants belonging to globally classified terrorist groups. We are not in Somalia suffering from famine caused by drought and desertification. We emphasize that the continuation of this policy and the ignoring of our repeated requests [ that are transmitted through officially adopted channels of communication] is forcing us to conclude that these policies are deliberate and are stemming from malicious intent rather than just negligence and irresponsibility.

International Organizations consistently ignore very specific and clear needs and are assiduously failing to meet those needs time after time. Especially for some medical supplies and essential medicines, like the anaesthesia drugs, sterilization and hygiene products. Our medical staff are wondering if they are expected to conduct surgical operations in the hospital without anaesthesia. Or is the hospital destined, by you, to become the incubator for the spread of infections rather than as a centre for healing them?

The hospital is also surprised by the lack of supplies of diabetes medications in particular, especially insulin, as well as anti-hypertensive drugs, diuretics and many other chronic disease medications. Would you, Mr de Mistura accept this situation for your own family or loved ones?  Do you feel good when the health conditions of our diabetic patients gradually deteriorate to a slow death.  A tragedy that has already befallen people in our besieged towns.

As for our suffering children, our medical staff here are demanding to know why, for 10 months, you have not supplied any vaccines. We know that these International Organisations supply these simple vaccines globally, even during peace time.  We know that they distribute them on a regular basis to residents in the surrounding areas who live under terrorist rule.  It seems that Mr de Mistura is not aware that thousands of children trapped in our towns are at risk of getting sick from diseases that could be prevented by these vaccines, that you have consistently failed to supply.

In addition to all of the above the UN continues to provide aid that is lacking specific categories of medicine, like antibiotics, cough, cold, diarrhoea, anti-spasmodic, anti-allergy drugs, dermal ointments and diapers. Thus exacerbating our original crisis resulting from the deprivation of diesel oil.

This fuel deprivation renders it impossible to access clean, safe water and subsequently leads to the inevitable spread of disease. Transportation of the sick and wounded to hospital is a slow process, especially those injuries arising from the daily escalation of Al Qaeda violations of the established ceasefire.  Added to this are the sickness and deprivation caused by the cold weather, lack of fuel for warmth, the huge decline in agricultural production and the enforced consumption of the two towns stored resources because of the siege conditions.

May we remind you that the Syrian people are, above all, a resourceful and productive people. If you were to supply us with the fuel, that would be sufficient for many of our needs.  We can even feed our neighbours from the wheat stores and the bounty from our own land.  Currently our grain stockpiles are being consumed by mould as there is no way for us to grind and bake it.  The UN even ignored our requests for preservatives to help us to conserve it more efficiently.

Lack of supplies for our radiography unit and diagnostic laboratory have closed these departments down completely.

The quality of foodstuff supplied is appalling. Much of it is decaying or stale.  There is no diversity.  We have no vegetables, fruit, meat, sugar, tea and coffee.  These essential goods are not even included in the aid deliveries or in very low quantities.  The milk that the people in Madaya complained about being in short supply, we can confirm that supplies have been non-existent to Kafarya and Foua for many months now except for scant supplies of powdered milk.

Thus, all of the above clearly demonstrates the determination of the staff of the United Nations notto deal with us as human beings that have requests and needs that should be respected. They only want to send us what overflows from the warehouses of second rate materials without regard to our needs.

As for our response; it will definitely be the continuation of resistance and attachment to our land and our homes.  We are also determined to remain true to our cultural, religious and humanitarian identity, and to stand by our political choices. As for the representatives of the international community both individuals and organizations, they will continue to be responsible for the cynical aggravation of our suffering and in so doing, they ally themselves with the forces of darkness and terrorism against our oppressed civilians.

From the Specialist Hospital of AlFua, AlFua, Idlib, February 19, 2016

Today we also received a message from a relative of 10 year old Najeb Ahmad Hallak, shot through the heart by the Ahrar al Sham thugs surrounding al Foua and Kafarya.  The message was very simple.

“I lose my friends.  I lose my family.  I lose my future.  I lose my dreams”

10 year old Najeb. Murdered by western backed terrorists. Kafarya & Foua

In Summary

When we read of the UN’s apparent deliberate malpractice towards the besieged and marginalised villages of Kafarya and Foua, their actions and inactions exacerbating the humanitarian situation as opposed to improving it, we have to again question the UN’s neutrality in Syria.

Their claims that it is the Syrian government preventing deliveries of humanitarian aid must be doubted in the light of this report. Particularly when those claims are also denied by Dr Al Jaafari, permanent Syrian representative to the UN, who is adamant that, in the case of Madaya, it was the UN who had logistical problems that delayed their entry into Madaya.

If nothing else we must question the humanity of any Humanitarian organisation that can wilfully destroy hope and reinforce despair.

Humanism is the only – I would go so far as saying the final- resistance we have against the inhuman practices and injustices that disfigure human history.  ~ Edward Said

PDF Version: Statement by the Specialist Hospital of AlFua and the People of the Besieged Towns of AlFua

***

Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her personal blog The Wall Will Fall.

Between 3,000 and 5,000 so-called ‘foreign fighters’ – EU citizens trained in Islamic state terror camps – have returned to Europe and pose a “completely new challenge,” according the continent’s top police chief.

“Europe is currently facing the highest terror threat in more than in a decade,” Rob Wainwright, Europol’s director,told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, warning of the real possibility of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or other terror groups attacks in Europe.

“We can expect [IS] or other religious terror groups to stage an attack somewhere in Europe with the aim of achieving mass casualties among the civilian population,” he said, noting that the risk of attacks by individuals has also not diminished.

However, Wainwright refused to link the unprecedented increase in the terror threat with the ongoing refugee crisis. He refuted the widespread assumption that terrorists are infiltrating Europe under the guise of asylum seekers.

“There are no concrete indications that terrorists are systematically using the stream of refugees to come into Europe undetected,”Wainwright said.

Last month, former UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox expressed concern that jihadists could sneak into the EU among asylum-seekers. Southern European countries through which they travel“have no idea whether these people are genuine refugees or asylum seekers, or economic migrants, or terrorists operating under the cover of either,” he said.

These worries were substantiated after the German domestic intelligence service confirmed in February that it had received more than 100 tip-offs alleging IS militants had arrived in the country pretending to be refugees. The news prompted further debate on EU migration policy.

Last year, FBI Director James Comey confirmed to the US Senate committee that Islamic State terrorists had obtained at least one printing machine used to provide militants with authentic-looking Syrian passports. The machine is believed to have been seized by terrorists during an IS offensive on the city of Deir ez-Zour. The revelation sparked concerns that large amounts of forged IDs can be manufactured in IS-controlled territories.

Two fraudulent Syrian passports were found at the site of the Paris attacks, which claimed the lives of 130 people in November. They are believed to belong to suicide bombers, who arrived in Europe via refugee routes.

In February, the FSB (Russian security agency) captured 14 gang members who were forging passports for Islamic extremists heading to Syria and planning to conduct terrorist and extremist activities in Russia.

According to a report on global terrorism from the Institute of Economics and Peace, since the start of the military conflict in Syria in 2011 between 25,000 and 30,000 ‘foreign fighters’ have arrived in Iraq and Syria, with Europe accounting for 21 percent of the total number.

First published in November 2015.

Erdogan is an international outlaw, He’s supporting ISIS, US proxy foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, directly involved in their oil smuggling, refining and sales worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the black market.

America and other Western  nations are well aware of what’s going on, doing nothing to stop it, aiding it by inaction and/or direct support – Russia alone intervening by bombing ISIS’ truck pipeline, transporting oil along with its facilities in Syria, 

Mowaffak al Rubaie is a former Iraqi Governing Council member/national security advisor. Interviewed by RT International, he explained “(i)n the last eight months (alone), ISIS (sold) $800 million dollars worth of (stolen) oil on the black market of Turkey.”

“This is Iraqi oil and Syrian oil, carried by trucks from Iraq, from Syria through the borders to Turkey and sold (at) less than 50 percent of the international oil price.”

“Now this either gets consumed inside, the crude refined on Turkish territory by the Turkish refineries, and sold in the Turkish market or it goes to Jihan and then in the pipelines from Jihan to the Mediterranean and sold to the international market.”

“Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it’s operation. Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate.”

Al Rubaie stressed “no shadow of  a doubt” about Turkey’s full knowledge and involvement in what’s ongoing. Responsibility goes right to the top. Reports suggest that Erdogan’s son, Bilal, is actively engaged in illegal smuggling, selling and profiting from stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil, facilitated by Turkey’s security apparatus and intelligence.

Erdogan’s regime treats wounded ISIS terrorists in Turkish hospitals in border areas and Istanbul. Daesh recruits are trained in Turkey by CIA operatives and US special forces. They move freely cross-border to and from Syria and Iraq.

Al Rubaie said “no terrorist organization…can stand alone without a neighboring country helping it.” Complicit with Washington, Turkey is directly involved along with other NATO countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Israel.

Without this type backing, ISIS and other terrorist groups couldn’t exist. America bears full responsibility for creating them – complicit nations aiding its imperial enterprise.

Putin prioritizes crippling ISIS’ oil smuggling operations, destroying its ability to generate enormous revenues from black market  sales. None of this could go on without direct Erdogan regime involvement.

Russian pilots and drones observed and photographed a “living oil pipeline” – transporting vehicles moving as far as the eye can see and beyond the horizon, round-the-clock, heading for Turkey, returning empty to reload and head out again.

Since Russian air operations began targeting ISIS’ financial lifeline, over 1,000 oil transporting trucks were destroyed along with with depots and other facilities in Syria.

Assad’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said “Turkey continues to maintain export and transportation of oil stolen in Iraq and Syria by ISIL militants. Then, the oil is transported to ports abroad.”

Sergey Lavrov explained high-level Turkish officials “carefully protect any information about their oil smuggling deals. (It’s) transported (in) the area where the Russian plane was shot down, and (where) the terrorist infrastructure, arms and munitions depots and control centers” are located.

Retired French General Dominique Trinquand accused Turkey of “either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people.”

On Saturday, Turkish police arrested Ankara Gendarmerie Regional Commander Major General Ibrahim Aydin, former Adana Gendarmerie Regional Commander Brigadier General Hamza Celepoglu and former Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory Head Colonel Burhanettin Cihangiroglu on charges of treason and espionage – for revealing information about regime authorities transporting weapons cross-border to ISIS terrorists in Syria.

Charges relate to a January 2014 incident when they were involved in intercepting weapons-filled trucks belonging to Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT).

In May 2015, Turkish Cumhuriyet media published information about it, posting photos of MIT trucks being inspected by security officers.

Large amounts of heavy and other weapons were heading cross-border to Syria. The publication’s editor-in-chief and Ankara bureau chief now face treason and espionage charges for exposing regime criminality.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

The military draft has not been used in the United States since 1973, but the machinery has remained in place (costing the federal government about $25 million a year). Males over 18 have been required to register for the draft since 1940 (except between 1975 and 1980) and still are today, with no option to register as conscientious objectors or to choose peaceful productive public service. Some in Congress have been making “enlightened” feminist noises about forcing young women to register as well. In most states young men who get driver’s licenses are automatically registered for the draft without their permission (and virtually all of those states’ governments claim that automatically registering people to vote would just not be realistic). When you apply for financial aid for college, if you’re male, you probably won’t get it until after a mandatory check to see if you’re registered for the draft.

A new bill in Congress would abolish the draft, and a petition in support of it has gained a good deal of traction. But a significant contingent among those who sincerely want peace vehemently opposes ending the draft, and in fact favors drafting young people into war starting tomorrow. Since coming out as a supporter of the new legislation, I’ve encountered far more support than opposition. But the opposition has been intense and sizable. I’ve been called naive, ignorant, ahistorical, and desirous of slaughtering poor boys to protect the elite children I supposedly care exclusively about.

Mr. Moderator, may I have a thirty-second rebuttal, as the distinguished demagogue addressed me directly?

We’re all familiar with the argument behind peace activists’ demand for the draft, the argument that Congressman Charles Rangel made when proposing to start up a draft some years back. U.S. wars, while killing almost exclusively innocent foreigners, also kill and injure and traumatize thousands of U.S. troops drawn disproportionately from among those lacking viable educational and career alternatives. A fair draft, rather than a poverty draft, would send — if not modern-day Donald Trumps, Dick Cheneys, George W. Bushes, or Bill Clintons — at least some offspring of relatively powerful people to war. And that would create opposition, and that opposition would end the war. That’s the argument in a nutshell. Let me offer 10 reasons why I think this is sincere but misguided.

1. History doesn’t bear it out. The drafts in the U.S. civil war (both sides), the two world wars, and the war on Korea did not end those wars, despite being much larger and in some cases fairer than the draft during the American war on Vietnam. Those drafts were despised and protested, but they took lives; they did not save lives. The very idea of a draft was widely considered an outrageous assault on basic rights and liberties even before any of these drafts. In fact, a draft proposal was successfully argued down in Congress by denouncing it as unconstitutional, despite the fact that the guy who had actually written most of the Constitution was also the president who was proposing to create the draft. Said Congressman Daniel Webster on the House floor at the time (1814): “The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion…Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not…Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?” When the draft came to be accepted as an emergency wartime measure during the civil and first world wars, it never would have been tolerated during peacetime. (And it’s still not anywhere to be found in the Constitution.) Only since 1940 (and under a new law in ’48), when FDR was still working on manipulating the United States into World War II, and during the subsequent 75 years of permanent wartime has “selective service” registration gone on uninterrupted for decades. The draft machine is part of a culture of war that makes kindergarteners pledge allegiance to a flag and 18-year-old males sign up to express their willingness to go off and kill people as part of some unspecified future government project. The government already knows your Social Security number, sex, and age. The purpose of draft registration is in great part war normalization.

2. People bled for this. When voting rights are threatened, when elections are corrupted, and even when we are admonished to hold our noses and vote for one or another of the god-awful candidates regularly placed before us, what are we reminded of? People bled for this. People risked their lives and lost their lives. People faced fire hoses and dogs. People went to jail. That’s right. And that’s why we should continue the struggle for fair and open and verifiable elections. But what do you think people did for the right not to be drafted into war? They risked their lives and lost their lives. They were hung up by their wrists. They were starved and beaten and poisoned. Eugene Debs, hero of Senator Bernie Sanders, went to prison for speaking against the draft. What would Debs make of the idea of peace activists supporting a draft in order to stir up more peace activism? I doubt he’d be able to speak through his tears.

3. Millions dead is a cure worse than the disease. I am very well convinced that the peace movement shortened and ended the war on Vietnam, not to mention removing a president from office, helping to pass other progressive legislation, educating the public, communicating to the world that there was decency hiding in the United States, and — oh, by the way — ending the draft. And I have zero doubt that the draft had helped to build the peace movement. But the draft did not contribute to ending the war before that war had done far more damage than has any war since. We can cheer for the draft ending the war, but four million Vietnamese lay dead, along with Laotians, Cambodians, and over 50,000 U.S. troops. And as the war ended, the dying continued. Many more U.S. troops came home and killed themselves than had died in the war. Children are still born deformed by Agent Orange and other poisons used. Children are still ripped apart by explosives left behind. If you add up numerous wars in numerous nations, the United States has inflicted death and suffering on the Middle East to equal or surpass that in Vietnam, but none of the wars has used anything like as many U.S. troops as were used in Vietnam. If the U.S. government had wanted a draft and believed it could get away with starting one, it would have. If anything, the lack of a draft has restrained the killing. The U.S. military would add a draft to its existing billion-dollar recruitment efforts, not replace one with the other. And the far greater concentration of wealth and power now than in 1973 pretty well assures that the children of the super-elite would not be conscripted.

4. Don’t underestimate support for a draft. The United States has a much greater population than do most countries of people who say they are ready to support wars and even of people who say they would be willing to fight a war. Forty-four percent of U.S. Americans now tell Gallup polling that they “would” fight in a war. Why aren’t they now fighting in one? That’s an excellent question, but one answer could be: Because there’s no draft. What if millions of young men in this country, having grown up in a culture absolutely saturated in militarism, are told it’s their duty to join a war? You saw how many joined without a draft between September 12, 2001, and 2003. Is combining those misguided motivations with a direct order from the “commander in chief” (whom many civilians already refer to in those terms) really what we want to experiment with? To protect the world from war?!

5. The supposedly non-existent peace movement is quite real. Yes, of course, all movements were bigger in the 1960s and they did a great deal of good, and I’d willingly die to bring back that level of positive engagement. But the notion that there has been no peace movement without the draft is false. The strongest peace movement the United States has seen was probably that of the 1920s and 1930s. The peace movements since 1973 have restrained the nukes, resisted the wars, and moved many in the United States further along the path toward supporting war abolition. Public pressure blocked the United Nations from supporting recent wars, including the 2003 attack on Iraq, and made supporting that war such a badge of shame that it has kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House at least once so far. It also resulted in concern in 2013 among members of Congress that if they backed the bombing of Syria they’d been seen as having backed “another Iraq.” Public pressure was critical in upholding a nuclear agreement with Iran last year. There are many ways to build the movement. You can elect a Republican president and easily multiply the ranks of the peace movement 100-fold the next day. But should you? You can play on people’s bigotry and depict opposition to a particular war or weapons system as nationalistic and macho, part of preparation for other better wars. But should you? You can draft millions of young men off to war and probably see some new resisters materialize. But should you? Have we really given making the honest case for ending war on moral, economic, humanitarian, environmental, and civil liberties grounds a fair try?

6. Doesn’t Joe Biden’s son count? I too would love to see a bill passed requiring that congress members and presidents deploy to the front lines of any war they support. But in a society gone mad enough for war, even steps in that direction wouldn’t end the war making. It appears the U.S. military killed the Vice President’s son through reckless disregard for its own cannon fodder. Will the Vice President even mention it, much less make a move to end the endless warmaking? Don’t hold your breath. U.S. Presidents and Senators used to be proud to send their offspring off to die. If Wall Street can out-do the gilded age, so can the servants of the military industrial complex.

7. We build a movement to end war by building a movement to end war. The surest way we have of reducing and then ending militarism, and the racism and materialism with which it is interwoven, is to work for the end of war. By seeking to make wars bloody enough for the aggressor that he stops aggressing, we would essentially be moving in the same direction as we already have by turning public opinion against wars in which U.S. troops die. I understand that there might be more concern over wealthier troops and greater numbers of troops. But if you can open people’s eyes to the lives of gays and lesbians and transgendered people, if you can open people’s hearts to the injustices facing African Americans murdered by police, if you can bring people to care about the other species dying off from human pollution, surely you can also bring them even further along than they’ve already come in caring about the lives of U.S. troops not in their families — and perhaps even about the lives of the non-Americans who make up the vast majority of those killed by U.S. warmaking. One result of the progress already made toward caring about U.S. deaths has been greater use of robotic drones. We need to be building opposition to war because it is the mass murder of beautiful human beings who are not in the United States and could never be drafted by the United States. A war in which no Americans die is just as much a horror as one in which they do. That understanding will end war.

8. The right movement advances us in the right direction. Pushing to end the draft will expose those who favor it and increase opposition to their war mongering. It will involve young people, including young men who do not want to register for the draft and young women who do not want to be required to start doing so. A movement is headed in the right direction if even a compromise is progress. A compromise with a movement demanding a draft would be a small draft. That would almost certainly not work any of the magic intended, but would increase the killing. A compromise with a movement to end the draft might be the ability to register for non-military service or as a conscientious objector. That would be a step forward. We might develop out of that new models of heroism and sacrifice, new nonviolent sources of solidarity and meaning, new members of a movement in favor of substituting civilized alternatives for the whole institution of war.

9. The war mongers want the draft too. It’s not only a certain section of peace activists who want the draft. So do the true war mongers. The selective service tested its systems at the height of the occupation of Iraq, preparing for a draft if needed. Various powerful figures in D.C. have proposed that a draft would be more fair, not because they think the fairness would end the warmaking but because they think the draft would be tolerated. Now, what happens if they decide they really want it? Should it be left available to them? Shouldn’t they at least have to recreate the selective service first, and to do so up against the concerted opposition of a public facing an imminent draft? Imagine if the United States joins the civilized world in making college free. Recruitment will be devastated. The poverty draft will suffer a major blow. The actual draft will look very desirable to the Pentagon. They may try more robots, more hiring of mercenaries, and more promises of citizenship to immigrants. We need to be focused on cutting off those angles, as well as on in fact making college free.

10. Take away the poverty draft too. The unfairness of the poverty draft is not grounds for a larger unfairness. It needs to be ended too. It needs to be ended by opening up opportunities to everyone, including free quality education, job prospects, life prospects. Isn’t the proper solution to troops being stop-lossed not adding more troops but waging less war? When we end the poverty draft and the actual draft, when we actually deny the military the troops it needs to wage war, and when we create a culture that views murder as wrong even when engaged in on a large scale and even when all the deaths are foreign, then we’ll actually get rid of war, not just acquire the ability to stop each war 4 million deaths into it.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director ofWorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books includeWar Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

War Is A Lie: Second Edition, published by Just World Books on April 5, 2016. Please buy it online that day. I’ll come anywhere in the world to speak about it. Invite me!

After their service in the Gulf War conflict from 1990-1991, hundreds of thousands of our country’s veterans began suffering from multiple and diverse debilitating symptoms including neurological and respiratory disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, psychological problems, skin conditions and gastrointestinal issues.

This cluster of symptoms came to be known as Gulf War syndrome. Independent investigations, including those conducted by many of the Gulf War veterans themselves, showed multiple causes behind Gulf War syndrome, including experimental vaccines and medications; exposure to depleted uranium (DU); toxicity from biological and chemical weapons, oil fires, and other environmental contaminants.

Yet for nearly two decades, the official word from the Veterans Administration (VA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the White House was that Gulf War syndrome did not exist. The result? Countless returning military personnel struggled for years to have their physical illnesses recognized as something other than psychological.

The latest official statistics compiled by the VA show that 25%-30%, or as many as 250,000 Gulf War veterans have suffered from this life-threatening spectrum of illnesses. (1) The number of deaths attributable to Gulf War syndrome remains elusive, however, the US government has failed to address this critical matter. A VA report released in 2014 weighs in on the disturbing oversight:

No comprehensive information has been published on the mortality experience of U.S. Gulf War era veterans after the year 2000. The 14 years for which no mortality figures are available represent more than half of the 23 years since Desert Storm. Mortality information from the last decade is particularly crucial for understanding the health consequences of the Gulf War, given the Epidemiological Research latency periods associated with many chronic diseases of interest. Despite specific recommendations over many years from both the current Committee and Institute of Medicine panels, federal research efforts to monitor the mortality experience of 1990-1991 Gulf War veterans remain seriously inadequate. (2)

How has the federal government managed to avoid taking responsibility on an issue that profoundly impacts the lives of hundreds of thousands of our veterans? Such is the power of the military-industrial complex and the political machine in Washington DC. It seems that as long as the government can deny its role in exposing our soldiers to unproven and toxic vaccines, medications, biological and chemical weapons and depleted uranium, it wouldn’t have to provide medical care to the victims of Gulf War illness. This is, quite simply, one of the largest medical scandals and coverups in American history. For nearly two decades, the American media supported the official position that Gulf War Syndrome was only in the heads of our veterans, while legions of vets and their families were hung out to dry and die. The administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have been complicit in the plot, and therefore stand accused of massive human rights violations. Yet American media denies it completely.

In this special two part investigation it will become clear that these claims are not wild conspiracy theories or anti-government rants, but based on firsthand testimony from veterans and years of solid scientific research. All these facts paint a sobering picture of the insidious corruption, lies and negligence on the part of our government, which has, quite literally, killed our own.

***

I started reporting on the alarming emergence of Gulf War syndrome in the mid nineties. In a 1994 cover story in a national publication and based on my original 2 year investigation, I discussed the disturbing link between exposure to experimental drugs and other chemical toxins and the host of serious health problems among servicemen and women who participated in the Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm. In the article, I interviewed vets who spoke not only about suffering deeply from various symptoms, but also how their attempts to bring their circumstances to light and receive healthcare were effectively stonewalled by US government.

One such serviceman was Paul Sullivan, who spoke to me about the hardships he faced, stating:

I first became ill right there in the gulf, with rashes and what we just considered runny noses. It never went away. I ended up with chronic sinusitis, chronic bronchitis, learned I had a tuberculosis infection. The rashes still haven’t gone away. The VA completely blew me off for two years until I went public·and talked on your radio station…. Before then, the VA was in the process of purging people’s records, denying them service…. This denial of the problem-that it even exists-by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is absolutely shocking, immoral, and unconscionable-absolutely outrageous. (3)

My investigative article also covered the findings of two federally appointed researchers who presented an incendiary report at a May 1994 Congressional hearing on the topic “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health?”. The report, written by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and Dr. Patricia Olsen, points to an effort by the DoD to fast-track Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of certain experimental drugs designed to protect soldiers against wartime chemical exposure. According to the report, the DoD told the FDA that botulinum toxoid (botulism) vaccine and the anti-nerve gas drug pyridostigmine bromide were safe and effective for long-term use, despite the fact that no such evidence existed. Further, the researchers showed that DoD studies on the drugs employed shoddy scientific methodology and turned up ample evidence of serious adverse side effects. Another disturbing fact was the lack of soldiers’ informed consent. I explained in the article that:

According to Zuckerman and Olson, initially the Department of Defense assured the F.D.A. that investigational drugs would be administered to soldiers on a voluntary basis. Information on the products would be provided, and soldiers would be monitored for ill effects. As it turned out, though, none of these conditions were met. The Defense Department got the F.D.A. to grant them waivers from informed-consent regulations for the use of pyridostigmine and botulinum-toxoid vaccine. As a result, many gulf veterans were not told what vaccine they were being given or what the risks were. (4)

Despite years of mounting evidence, it was not until 2008 that Gulf War syndrome was officially recognized as a distinct illness after a US Congress-appointed committee released an analysis of over 100 studies related to Gulf War illnesses. The committee concluded that there was a clear link to specific chemical exposures. The chemicals identified included pesticides, pyridostigmine bromide, and the nerve gas sarin that troops may have been exposed to during the demolition of a weapons depot. The committee’s chief scientist, Dr. Beatrice Golomb, singled out the acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor drugs such as pyridostigmine bromide as having a particularly strong connection to the development of veterans’ ill health. She also revealed that some people appear to be particularly at risk from such chemicals due to genetic variations that impair enzyme function. When exposed, these people run a much higher risk for developing symptoms and disease (5).

The committee concluded that Gulf War illnesses are certainly physical in nature and that the psychological stressors experienced by Gulf War vets, while substantial, were inadequate to account for the extent of their illnesses. The committee findings reported that more than a quarter of the 700,000 US veterans of the 1991 conflict have suffered from the illness.(6)

***

Before we dig deeper into the politics and deceit that has, and in some ways continues to suppress the Gulf War syndrome issue, let’s first take a closer look at the 25 years of scientific inquiry establishing a link between the multiple toxins to which our soldiers were exposed and the long list of Gulf War-related illnesses .

Deconstructing the Symptoms and Science of Gulf War Syndrome

The term Gulf War syndrome is not an easily defined condition, but rather encompasses a wide variety of ailments. Former congressman Steven Buyer (R-IN), whose Army reserve unit was stationed at a prisoner of war camp in the region, calls Gulf War syndrome a misnomer, explaining that he and other afflicted servicemen have been plagued with a broad spectrum of chronic disorders. Having experienced some of the symptoms firsthand, Buyer attributes the heightened frequency of illnesses among veterans to the wide variety of hazardous substances they encountered in the Gulf, including poison gases, diesel fumes, petroleum-related pollution, parasites, experimental medications, and biological warfare agents.(7) According to the Association of Birth Defect Children, Gulf War exposures include, but are not limited to: DEET, permethrin, pyridostigmine, pentachlorophenol, benzocaine sulfur, aluminum phosphide, baygon, boric acid, Sevin, amidinohydrazone, diazinon, Dursban, dichlorvos, Ficam, carbaryl, lindane, malathion, oil well fires, leaded fuels, depleted uranium, solvents, DeContam agent, malaria pills, campfires, leishmaniasis, chemical warfare agents, CARC, experimental vaccinations (including those with squalene), D-phenothrin, allethrin, paint toxins, and many others. (8)

Dr. Boaz Milner, who practiced at the VA hospital in Allen Park, Michigan, treated hundreds of patients claiming to have become ill as a result of their Gulf War experience. Milner agrees with Buyer that the collection of symptoms that have manifested can be attributed to a variety of factors, which he has categorized into five syndromes. Milner’s first category of Gulf War syndrome sufferers consists of soldiers who were exposed to excessive quantities of radiation, likely a result of the depleted uranium used in munitions. The second form was induced by the widespread use of experimental vaccines that were designed to protect the troops from the harmful elements they would encounter, while another category encompasses veterans exposed to various environmental pollutants, including the more than 700 burning oil wells that contaminated the region’s air and water. Milner believes that other soldiers may have contracted illnesses due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds, such as pesticides. The fifth form of the syndrome was brought on by the release of biological warfare agents.(9) With so many exposures, it is logical to anticipate a broad spectrum of symptoms for sufferers of Gulf War syndrome.

Chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome affects over half of Gulf War victims, according to Dr. Garth Nicolson, President and Founder of the Institute for Molecular Medicine, who, with his wife, molecular biophysicist Dr. Nancy Nicolson, spent years studying veteran health conditions. Other symptoms pointed out by Nicolson include lymphoma, cardiac ailments, memory loss, leukoencephalopathy, and neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Also common to sufferers are dizziness, nausea, stomach pains, light sensitivity, intense anxiety, breathing difficulty, muscle spasms, diarrhea, blurred vision, inexplicable skin rashes, hives, bleeding gums, eye redness, night sweats, and acute migraine-like headaches. (10)

Vaccines

The effects from the mélange of chemicals Gulf War vets were exposed to is impossible to unravel fully after examining the brutal fact that the experimental vaccines mixed with unmonitored medicine had never been proven safe. In fact, the widespread use of experimental vaccines during Desert Storm has been cited by many as a possible cause of Gulf War syndrome. Dr. Garth Nicolson elaborates, “I’m not a big fan of experimental vaccines. There have been too many mistakes. Usually you find these things out years later. Often agents that we think innocuous turn out to be harmful.”(11) Even worse, during the Gulf War, the established procedures of vaccination were neglected and ignored. Normally, only one inoculation should be given at a time, but the military insisted on giving multiple shots at once, which, according to Nicolson, is the worst thing you can do because it suppresses the immune system. (12)

The troops immunized for the Gulf became government guinea pigs. They received experimental vaccines, such anthrax and botulinum, which were not approved for use by the FDA and have since been shown to cause potentially dangerous side effects. Soldiers who were given these experimental vaccines, without informed consent, have reported suffering from a variety of neurological problems and aberrant bleeding from various parts of the body.

Neil Tetzlaff, a lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force during the Gulf War, testified at a senate hearing of his symptoms:

On the plane ride to Saudi and during my first day in-country, I was nauseated and vomited. I attributed the sickness to the plane ride and tenseness of the situation. On my second day there, I vomited again and felt different. I attributed the sickness to something I’d eaten. On the third day, I was extremely nauseated and vomited multiple times. I sought out the doctor and discussed my illness with him. We dismissed it as something I had eaten at the Saudi canteen. On my fourth day there, I vomited violently, the worst ever of my life, and was acting a bit off center and muddled. … On the morning of the seventh day, I vomited about a quart of blood. Since deployed for Desert Shield, I have been suffering moderate to severe and intolerable pain, and fatigue, and lately have developed one heck of a palsy. I’ve lost [much of] my ability to speak because I can’t recall words, have extreme problems with my short-term memory, and I had a dramatic change in my olfactory system. The last three and a half years have been extremely difficult on me and my family.(13)

Not only did the experimental vaccines pose a threat to the troops’ immune systems, the anthrax vaccination contained squalene, an unapproved adjuvant linked to devastating autoimmune diseases. The DOD made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Gulf War military personnel. (14) Despite these efforts, unusually high antibody levels for squalene have been measured in blood samples of Gulf War vets. A clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the syndrome sufferers who were injected with squalene.

This was confirmed in an investigation conducted by Insight magazine, which also reported that VA spokespeople have no explanation for these findings.(15) The mystery is compounded by the disappearance of up to 70,000 service-related immunization records. One of the scientists hired by Insight to investigate the presence of squalene in veterans’ blood elaborates on the study’s findings: “We found soldiers who are not sick that do not have the antibodies. … We found soldiers who never left the U.S. but who got shots who are sick, and they have squalene in their systems. We found people who served overseas in various parts of the desert that are sick who have squalene. And we found people who served in the desert but were civilians who never got these shots … who are not sick and do not have squalene.” (16)

According to one government official familiar with the blood test results, veterans’ illnesses were correlated with increased levels of antibodies for squalene. Another official explained, “I’m not telling you that squalene is making these people sick, but I am telling you that the sick ones have it in them.” (17)

Research immunologist Pam Asa has worked with about 150 sick Gulf War individuals. Asa reported that the autoimmune manifestations of squalene vary from person to person, depending on the patient’s genetic makeup. “In other words, patient A will have a certain spectrum of symptoms, and patient B will have another. But it’s still the same disease.” (18)

Mark Zeller is a serviceman suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. He revealed the following to me in a radio interview:

I sent my blood and got a notice back that I’m positive for this stuff called squalene, which is an adjuvant, which goes into a vaccine. This adjuvant is still not for human use. I’m here to tell you, I’ve got squalene in my body. And I said, it’s not supposed to be in humans. To this date, it’s still not used in humans except for research. I never sought to be a guinea pig out in the desert. I signed on to protect my country. At least that’s what I thought. (19)

Zeller isn’t alone. A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

… The substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene. (20)

According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, a former principal research scientist for the government of Australia:

… This adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War Syndrome,” documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War. The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymph­adenopathy, rashes, photo­­sensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjogren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fevers. (21)

Although the US government has been reluctant to associate squalene, and vaccines in general, with Gulf War syndrome, a 2014 VA report concedes that vaccine exposure cannot be discounted:

Taken together, the scientific literature published since 2008 supports and reinforces the conclusion in the 2008 RACGWVI report that exposures to pesticides and pyridostigmine bromide are causally associated with Gulf War illness and that exposures to low-level nerve agents, oil well fires, receipt of multiple vaccines, and combinations of Gulf War exposures cannot be ruled out as contributing factors to this condition. (22)

Biological and Chemical Weapons

Disclosures by high-ranking Iraqi officials have confirmed that Iraq possessed an extensive chemical and biological arsenal during the Gulf War. After his defection in August 1995, Saddam Hussein’s top biological weapons adviser, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamel Majid, unveiled an abundance of classified information to United Nations investigators documenting the development of Iraq’s biological and chemical warfare arsenals. Prior to the Gulf War, the Iraqis engaged in a top-secret program to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that could be used against their enemies, including the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Prior to the disclosures, Iraq claimed it had only 10 people employed in its biological programs. Since then it has admitted that 150 scientists and an extensive support staff were involved in the mass development of biological warfare agents throughout the 1980s. According to UN officials, Iraq possessed at least 50 bombs loaded with anthrax, 100 bombs containing botulinum, and 25 missile warheads carrying other germ agents.

The Iraqi government’s goal was to create a diversified arsenal that went far beyond conventional weapons. For instance, one viral agent manufactured by the Iraqis was capable of generating hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, which commonly results in temporary blindness or bleeding eyes. Another agent could be used to induce chronic diarrhea, a condition quite effective in immobilizing troops. The secret Iraqi programs were also responsible for the production of at least 78 gallons of gangrene-inducing chemicals that were capable of penetrating the body and infecting wounds. Other agents included “yellow rain,” a lethal fungus responsible for bleeding lungs, and ricin, a deadly toxin derived from castor oil plants.

Was Iraq ready to use its poisons on the battlefield? Jonathan Tucker documents in the Nonproliferation Review that Iraq used them on 76 separate occasions.(23) Tucker notes that during the conflict London’s Sunday Times reported on intercepted Iraqi military communications indicating that Saddam Hussein had authorized front-line commanders to use chemical weapons as soon as coalition forces began their ground offensive.(24) The American Newsweek also reported this fact. (25)

We have military documentation to support assertions of biological and chemical weapons presence. Battlefield reports of the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade confirmed the release of anthrax on Feb. 24, 1991, at King Khalid Military City, while documentation from the following day reveals the presence of lewisite, a nerve gas that may have been released either by an Iraqi assault or from secondary explosions.

Depleted Uranium

In addition to the chemical and biological warfare, there is another disturbing legacy left by the American invasion of Iraq: depleted uranium. DU is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Its name implies it is a harmless material, but in actuality it is still a highly poisonous, radioactive, heavy metal. The term depleted comes from the process of extracting and removing the highly radioactive isotope U-235 from natural uranium and thereby leaving the relatively stable and less radioactive isotope, U-238. After U-235 is extracted from U-238 for use in nuclear weapons and breeder reactors, only U-238 remains. Although it is considerd depleted because it no longer contains U-235, U-238 still emits one-third of its original level of radioactivity.

The DoD claims that DU is used only on bullet tips and tank shells in order to enhance penetration of steel as easily as butter. The truth is that the entire bullet or shell, not just the tips or coating, contain U-238, making them especially hazardous. Furthermore upon explosion the uranium can be present at a nano-scale. Dr. Doug Rokke, a retired major who served as the director of the US Army Depleted Uranium Project in the mid-90s is a specialist in uranium cleanup efforts. He was an advisor for DU science and health for the Centers for Disease Control, US Institute of Medicine, Congress, and the DOD. Rokke has been at the forefront in efforts to alert health and military officials about DU’s enormous health risks:

It is important to realize that DU penetrators are solid uranium 238. They are not tipped or coated! DU oxides are shed during flight spreading minute contamination all along the flight path. The Cannon bore is also contaminated as is the inside of each tank or bradley fighting vehicle or LAV.  During an impact at least 40 % of the penetrator forms uranium oxides or fragments which are left on the terrain, within or on impacted equipment, or within impacted structures.

The remainder of the penetrator retains its initial shape. Thus we are left with a solid piece of uranium lying someplace which can be picked up by children. DU also ignites in the air during flight and upon impact spreading contamination everyplace. The resulting shower of burning DU and DU fragments causes secondary explosions, fires, injury, and death. (26)

US and British forces used Operation Desert Storm as a testing ground for the widespread employment of DU during Gulf War I. It is estimated that over 940,000 30 mm uranium-tipped bullets and 14,000 large-caliber depleted rounds were released. Even before the second Gulf War, between 350 and 800 tons of DU residue, with a half-life of 4.4 billion years, permeated the ground and water of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

Such immense radioactive pollution has exposed countless people. Inhalation and ingestion of DU were unavoidable for troops in proximity to exploding shells. In addition, soldiers spent long hours sitting in tanks, handling uranium-laced shells and casings. Weapons were also taken home as souvenirs. Families of veterans came in contact with the substance after handling clothing laced with it.

The insidious adverse effects of DU in the body was illustrated by scientists at the DOD’s Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Maryland, in research presented to the American Association for Cancer Research and the Society of Toxicology. They tested the effects of embedded DU by inserting shrapnel-like pellets into the legs of rats. The researchers were surprised at how quickly oncogenes–genes believed to be precursors to cancer–formed. Another discovery was that DU kills suppressor, or health-maintaining, genes. The experiments also demonstrated that DU spreads throughout the body, depositing itself in the brain and spleen, among other organs, and that it can be passed by a pregnant rat to a developing fetus.(27)

Many of the symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans and their families are indicative of radiation poisoning. These include nausea, vomiting, memory loss, and increased cancer rates. In addition, veterans’ children are manifesting an alarming rate of birth defects, lowered immunity, and childhood cancers. Radiation-affected sperm may be contributing these defects.

Dr. Jay Gould, author of The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors, has been an outspoken critic of low-level radiation. Gould says that exposure to DU released into the atmosphere poses the same grave dangers any other exposure to uranium. “There is nothing new about it,” Gould says, stressing that a biochemical impact of low-level radiation can immediately attack the immune response.(28) Since immune response is a key factor in maintaining good health, a weakened immune system makes people vulnerable to any kind of infection or allergic response. Consequently, everything from cancer to allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities can be activated by the uranium dust.

Gould adds that one reason why people generally ignore the dangers of low-level radiation is because it is often confused with background radiation:

Background radiation is something that humans have lived with for hundreds of thousands of years. Over that long period, our immune response has developed a capacity to resist natural forms of radiation from cosmic rays and radiation in the soil. But ever since the nuclear age began, we have introduced new fission products, like radioactive iodine and radioactive strontium that are released in the operation of a nuclear reactor or an explosion of a bomb. These have the ability to impact the immune response. This is what we mean by low-level radiation. It’s an internal radiation. In other words, if you ingest a fission product or a piece of uranium dust, it is like having a tiny x-ray go off for a tiny fraction of a second for the rest of your life. The effects of low-level radiation are quite awful, depending on which organ is affected. (29)

A University of Aberdeen peer-reviewed study of Gulf War vets equivocated on the reality of Gulf War illness. It admitted a higher, but not statistically significant, increase in death rates among soldiers who came into contact with DU and pesticides. A recent examination of the effects of DU in lung cell lines indicates that uranium changes regulatory biomolecular pathways within the lung tissues.(30) In rat tissue cells, a dramatic decrease in certain liver enzymes occurred. Other results indicate an increase in mRNA response (precursors to the cellular enzymes) to make up for the previous decrease in enzyme production.

Another paper by the Laboratoire de Radiotoxicologie Experimentale in Marseilles, France, suggests that in animal studies, DU inhalation can damage lung cells by changing DNA base pairs.(31) Introduction of DU into rat tracheae caused increased enzyme activity in rat testes three months later. In mouse cell lines, DU caused DNA mutations, and the authors point out that these were not only caused by radiation, but the actual presence of the chemical was toxic as well. (32) White blood cells of people exposed to the effects of DU in Bosnia and Herzegovina had measured changes in their genetic material.(33) In addition, an Israeli study showed that concentrations in hair, nails, and urine were directly correlated to the amounts of DU ingested in the water.(34) A further rat study shows that neurological exposure to DU may influence motor behavior and memory loss.(35) Despite the lack of extensive human cohort studies, these data suggest that DU present in bodily systems affects the various tissues throughout the body.

The University of Maryland School of Medicine studied vets who were exposed to friendly fire during the first Gulf War. During the course of a decade, vets continued to show elevated DU levels in their urine. The presence of increased DU research in the literature indicates a growing consensus that exposure to DU is a cause for concern.(36)One soldier who was struggling with terminal colon cancer described the environment where he was stationed as a toxic dump of “oil refineries, a cement factory, a chlorine factory and a sulfuric acid factory” all polluting the air. (37)

Gulf War Illness and Birth defects

Unfortunately, the suffering has not been limited to veterans. As early as 1994, the LA Times reported on birth defects appearing in the children of soldiers exposed to various chemical agents. (38) Reed West, daughter of Gulf veteran Dennis West from Waynesboro, Mississippi, was born prematurely with collapsed lungs and a faulty immune system. Joshua Miller, the son of veteran Aimee Miller, chronically suffers from unusual colds, pneumonia, and high fevers. In Waynesboro, Mississippi, the site of the National Guard Quartermaster Corps, 13 out of 15 children born to Gulf veterans suffered from serious disorders. Infant mortality rates have dramatically escalated in four counties in Kentucky and Tennessee, where the Army’s 101st Airborne Division is based; in three counties in Georgia, where the Army’s 197th Infantry Division is located; and at Ft. Hood, in Texas.(39) According to Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, a molecular toxicologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, men pass toxic chemicals on to their unborn children through their semen. (40)

According to Birth Defect Research for Children, a Florida-based association studying birth defects in Gulf veterans’ families, there is an increase in birth defects in children born to Gulf War vets. Its registry keeps track of babies born with missing limbs, chronic infections, delayed development, cancer, heart problems, and immunity defects. The center has identified a disproportionate occurrence of Goldenhar syndrome in Gulf veterans’ offspring.(41) Goldenhar syndrome (medically called oculo-auriculo-vertebral [OVA] spectrum) is a “rare disease,” yet it is popping up in the infants of Gulf War vets far too frequently. The syndrome has a wide range of symptoms, and frequently looks very different from one child to the next. Despite its dissimilarities, Goldenhar syndrome frequently produces facial deformities such as asymetrical distortions, abnormally small eyes, missing upper eyelids, ear malformations, incomplete or fused vertebral development, and numerous internal problems with the heart, lungs, kidneys, and intestines.

Persian Gulf vet Steve Miller knows this condition all too well: his son, conceived soon after his return from the Gulf, was born with Goldenhar. According to Miller, “He had hydrocephalus, spinal scoliosis, spina bifida, was missing his left eye and left ear, [and] his heart was on the right side of his body.” Miller continued to explain that “according to the National Institute of Health, [Goldenhar syndrome] is either hereditary or caused by teratogenic exposure. In our case we both tested negative in genetic testing.” (42)

So how did Miller’s child end up with such a rare disease when the genetic factors that supposedly cause Goldenhar syndrome were absent from both parents’ DNA? The answer: a multiplicity of poisons.

Mitochondria, Neurodegeneration and the Latest Scientific Evidence.

Compelling new research presented at a 2015 Conference held by the American Physiological Society (APS) has now linked Gulf War Syndrome pathology with impaired mitochondria function. Comparing the mitochondria in blood cells from from veterans who served in Gulf operations with healthy veterans who did not deploy, the research found that deployed vets had increased mitochondrial DNA and more damaged mitochondrial DNA than their healthy counterparts. The findings suggest that the toxic compounds affecting individuals with Gulf War syndrome may have directly damaged this critical component of the cellular health. (43)

These findings corroborate a study published in 2014 noting that “Mitochondrial problems account for which exposures relate to Gulf War illness, which symptoms predominate, how Gulf War illness symptoms manifest themselves, what objective tests have been altered, and why routine blood tests have not been useful.” (44)

January 2016 saw the publication of a comprehensive analysis of new research on Gulf War syndrome conducted at Boston University and several other institutions. Published in the journal Cortex, the analysis implicated exposure to pesticides, oil well fire emissions, sarin nerve gas and the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide pills as profoundly on the neurological health of Gulf vets.(45) The analysis discussed the high incidence of “structural and electrical abnormalities” in the central nervous system, brain cancer, and reduced white and gray brain matter in among the veterans. The researchers also stressed the importance of deepening the scientific inquiry in this area so that we may finally develop effective treatments:

Further research into the mechanisms and etiology of the health problems of [Gulf War] veterans is critical to developing biomarkers of exposure and illness, and preventing similar problems for military personnel in future deployments. This information is also critical for developing new treatments for GWI and related neurological dysfunction (46)

***

Twenty-five years after the conclusion of the Gulf War conflict, there is no debating the fact that our troops suffered tremendously not only from chemical hazards on the battlefield but also from exposure to dangerous experimental drugs administered by the US military. Part 2 of this Gulf War syndrome investigation, will take a closer look at the disturbing decades-long legacy of ignorance and outright denial about this serious illness on the part of the US government.

Notes

1.  “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Research Update and Recommendations, 2009-2013” US Dept of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/RACReport2014Final.pdf

2. Ibid

3. Null GM. The Gulf War syndrome: causes and the cover-up. Penthouse. September 1994. Reprinted with permission of the author,

4: Ibid

5. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. April 12, 2008.

6. Silverleib A. Gulf War syndrome is real, new federal report says [online article]. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/gulf.war.illness.study.

7.  Cary P, Tharp M. The Gulf War’s grave aura. U.S. News & World Report. July 8, 1996.

8.Presentation to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Veteran’s Administration [Web page].http://www.birthdefects.org/research/veterans.php.

9. France D. The families who are dying for our country. Redbook. Sept. 1994.

10. Null G. Interview with Dr. Garth Nicolson. Aug. 8th, 1997.

11. Null G. Interview with Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicolson. May 7, 1996.

12. Null G. Interview with Dr. Garth Nicolson. Aug. 8th, 1997.

13. Null G. Interview with Neil Tetzlaff. July 19th, 1997.

14. Bernstein D. Gulf War syndrome covered up. Covert Action Quarterly. 53.

15. Rodriguez PM. The Gulf War mystery. Insight Magazine, September 8, 1997.

16. Ibid.

17. Devitt M. Vaccines may be linked to Gulf War syndrome. DOD to review possible use of illegal additive. Dynamic Chiropractic. June 12, 2000.

18. Null G. Interview with Pam Asa. Aug. 9, 1997.

19. Null G. Interview with Mark Zeller. July 29, 1997.

20. Asa PB, Cao Y, Garry RF. Antibodies to squalene in Gulf War syndrome. Exp Mol Pathol. February 2000;68(1):55–64.

21. Scheibner V. Adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines. Nexus. Dec 2000;8(1)–Feb 2001;8(2).

22. “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Research Update and Recommendations, 2009-2013” US Dept of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/RACReport2014Final.pdf

23. Tucker J. Nonproliferation Review. Spring/Summer 1997.

24. Swain J, Adams J. Saddam gives local commanders go-ahead for chemical attacks. Sunday Times. Feb. 3, 1991.

25. Masland T, Waller D. Are we ready for chemical war? Newsweek. Mar. 4, 1991.

26. IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED ON DEPLETED URANIUM, Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.

April 13, 2004 http://www.gdr.org/depleted_uranium%20htm.htm

27. Mesler B. Nation. May 26, 1997.

28. Dr. Jay Gould. Personal interview. Oct. 28, 1996.

29. Ibid.

30. Malard V, Prat O. Proteomic analysis of the response of human lung cells to uranium. Proteomics. 2005 Nov;5(17):4568–80.

31. Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of depleted uranium particles inhaled by rats. Toxicol Sci. Jan 2006; 89(1):287–295. Epub 2005 Oct 12.

32. Stearns DM. Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium-DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells. Mutagenesis. Nov 2005;20(6):417–423. Epub 2005 Sep 29.

33. Krunić A. Micronuclei frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals exposed to depleted uranium. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. Sep 2005;56(3):227–232.

34. Karpas Z. Measurement of the 234U/238U ratio by MC-ICPMS in drinking water, hair, nails, and urine as an indicator of uranium exposure source. Health Phys. Oct 2005;89(4):315–321.

35. Monleau M, Bussy C, Lestaevel P, Houpert P, Paquet F, Chazel V. Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations. Neurosci Lett. Dec 16, 2005;390(1):31–36.

36. McDiarmid MA, Engelhardt SM, Oliver M, et al. Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. Aug 2, 2005:11–21.

37. McClain C. Cancer in Iraq vets raises possibility of toxic exposure. Arizona Daily Star. November 2, 2007.

38.  Serrano RA. Birth defects in Gulf vets’ babies stir fear, debate. Los Angeles Times. Nov. 14, 1994.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid

41. Birth Defect Research for Children Inc http://www.birthdefects.org.

42. Null G. Interview with Steve Miller. Aug. 9, 1997.

43. American Physiological Society (APS). “For veterans with Gulf War Illness, an explanation for the unexplainable symptoms.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 September 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150910185120.htm>.

44. Hayley J. Koslik, Gavin Hamilton, Beatrice A. Golomb. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Gulf War Illness Revealed by 31Phosphorus Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case-Control Study. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (3): e92887 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0092887

45. White, Roberta F., Lea Steele, James P. O’callaghan, Kimberly Sullivan, James H. Binns, Beatrice A. Golomb, Floyd E. Bloom, James A. Bunker, Fiona Crawford, Joel C. Graves, Anthony Hardie, Nancy Klimas, Marguerite Knox, William J. Meggs, Jack Melling, Martin A. Philbert, and Rachel Grashow. “Recent Research on Gulf War Illness and Other Health Problems in Veterans of the 1991 Gulf War: Effects of Toxicant Exposures during Deployment.” Cortex 74 (2016): 449-75. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

46. Ibid

It’s been almost two years since the cloud storage provider Dropbox appointed former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to its board. A move Edward Snowden, at the time, called “hostile” for data privacy.

Snowden’s comments on the matter first appeared in a video interview conducted by the Guardian, and were published in a July 17, 2014 article:

“Dropbox is a targeted you know wannabe PRISM partner,” he told the Guardian.“They just put … Condoleezza Rice on their board… who is probably the most anti-privacy official you can imagine. She’s one of the ones who oversaw Stellar Wind and thought it was a great idea. So they’re very hostile to privacy.”

PRISM: The NSA’s data collection surveillance program that every citizen should know about.PRISM and Stellar Wind were both approved and implemented during President George W. Bush’s administration.  (Image: (c) Adam Hart-Davis)

Dropbox and other popular cloud storage providers hold the encryption keys to hand over to the NSA should a request for your data be approved.

Snowden endorses “zero knowledge” systems. In layman’s terms, this means that cloud storage providers NOT hostile to data privacy don’t just encrypt your data, but actually host your data without their ability to access it – ever. They have zero knowledge of the contents of your data. It’s a big distinction, but one easily missed by a public inundated with confusing doublespeak on data privacy.

Snowden adds “that’s the only way they can prove to the customers that they can be trusted with their information,” and makes specific reference to one cloud company, SpiderOak, as a provider of zero knowledge systems.

Whereas Bernie Sanders claims to represent the bottom 99%, Hillary Clinton claims to represent a coalition of groups who are victimized by bigots (racists, sexists, etc.: she aims at women, homosexuals, Blacks, etc.).

Whereas Bernie seeks to mobilize the bottom economic 99% against the top 1% who have scooped up almost all of the economic benefits that Americans have gained since 1993, Hillary seeks to mobilize all bigotry-victims against all of the many types of bigots. These pitches are fundamentally different from one-another. In fact, they’re diametrically opposite diagnoses of the biggest ailment threatening the U.S. future: our perilous economy.

At the close of the Wisconsin Democratic debate on February 11th, Hillary Clinton made an appeal to members of labor unions, and then said:

I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on. … Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right. But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.

Bernie Sanders closed instead with:

This campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.

Hillary Clinton is saying that what’s “holding people back” is bigotry.

Bernie Sanders is saying that what’s holding people back is concentration of too much power in too few people — not meaning a concentration of too much power in a freely and democratically elected government (which Republicans constantly attack as having too much power), but instead meaning a concentration of too much power in the richest 1% who buy the government, and who use it to make American workers compete against the workers in Haiti, Honduras, Vietnam, etc., so as to benefit the global stockholders of international corporations by lowering wages, instead of to benefit American workers by increasing wages.

He’s attacking a system that benefits global stockholders by lowering wages everywhere to some lowest common denominator, so as to increase profits and stock-values and executive compensation everywhere. Workers don’t receive the benefits of that; the stockholders and executives in international corporations do. That’s the “1%”, though actually it’s even more concentrated in the top 0.1%.

Hillary Clinton is saying that the main problem in America is America’s bigots — it’s no economic motivation, by billionaires who essentially buy the government, nor by anyone else. This political view, in which there are essentially no economic classes, but only bigots and their victims, is fundamentally different from Sanders’s view. It’s so different that in some other countries they would constitute two different political parties.

Sanders is saying that the main problem in America is actually America’s corruption — a system that he says has been very successfully gamed by “the billionaire class.”

That’s what the Democrats’ Presidential choice comes down to.

This choice is a stark one. Democratic voters are being asked which is the primary issue for government to overcome: countervailing excessive greed by the super-rich, or countervailing all bigotry by anyone? Both greed and bigotry are bad, but which is more the main function of government to countervail? That’s the question.

Hillary Clinton is saying that what American workers are pitted against is, essentially, bigots, individuals who are bigoted — bigoted against gays, against women, against Blacks, against Hispanics, etc.; they’re not pitted against the controlling stockholders who are collectively represented by their corporation’s management and who want higher profits from paying lower wages. Hillary Clinton focuses on the cultural divide, the various types of inter-ethnic conflicts, as being “what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back.”

Bernie Sanders is saying that the big problem American workers are up against isn’t bigots — rich and poor — as much as it’s the unlimited greed of the controlling stockholders who are represented by management (even if they’re not bigots). His diagnosis is that not only should workers have the collective-bargaining right against the corporation’s owners, just like those corporate owners themselves already possess the collective-bargaining right via managers they hire, but that workers should also be more the focus of government’s concern and sympathy than stockholders are, because there are far more workers than owners, and because a one-person-one-vote democracy is far better than a one-dollar-one-vote ‘democracy’ (the latter of which is otherwise called an “oligarchy” or an “aristocracy”), the latter of which is what Sanders campaigns to put astop to.

Hillary Clinton is saying that there is no common and shared enemy that oppressed employees have: instead, the main problem is racist bigots in the case of Blacks; it’s homophobic bigots in the case of homosexuals; it’s misogynist bigots in the case of females, etcetera; and, if a Black happens also to be a homophobe, or a homosexual happens to be also an anti-Black racist, then each one of those victim-groups will be fighting against the bigoted members of the other victim-groups. The chief job of the government, led by the U.S. President, is then somehow to punish all types of bigots equally, regardless of their particular group, so as to minimize the complaints about bigotry from, and by, all Americans. That’s a balancing of groups against groups — a balancing of ethnicities. This is Clinton’s diagnosis and cure for America’s economic problems.

Hillary’s diagnosis isn’t economic or systemic, but instead cultural and individual — it’s actually individual against individual, instead of stockholders against employees. And, just as a particular victim of bigotry can also be a bigot (for example, a Black can be homophobic, sexist, or etc.), a particular employee can also be a stockholder; some individuals stand on both sides at once, there too; but those are all individual matters, not systemic matters, and so they’re not really authentic issues of governmental policy. Hillary Clinton says that they are the main issues of governmental policy — that people’s problems are mainly individual problems, against bigots; not systemic problems, against stealers-of-the-public’s-government — and she says that the government should focus on individuals’ problems, not on systemic problems. That’s her view, which she expresses on almost every occasion, though she doesn’t put it in quite this way — a systematic way.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, is saying that the oppressed do have acommon and shared (a systemic) enemy. Here is how he expressed this in a speech to the Democratic National Committee on 28 August 2015: “We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors.”He was saying this to individuals — specifically, to the Democratic Party’s chief political agents — most of whose own career success has largely depended upon that “billionaire class,” but Sanders was up-front to them about it. He even calls this “movement” a “revolution.” He’s not trying to hide his opposition to the staus-quo.

The Democratic Party’s Presidential contest isn’t really a contest between ‘idealism’ versus ‘pragmatism,’ such as some propagandists claim. To characterize either candidate as ‘the idealist’ versus ‘the pragmatist’ is false. That characterization of this contest is actually deeply deceptive, because it focuses on vague abstractions, whereas the real issue in the Democratic Party primaries now is totally nitty-gritty, and it concerns two alternative diagnoses of what has been going wrong with America’s economy in recent decades.

In Bernie’s view, American democracy is now in the emergency room; in Hillary’s view, complainers (against anything other than bigots) are like mere hypochondriacs who simply don’t understand the experts who say that things aren’t so bad, and that therefore no “revolution” is needed.

Is America’s basic governmental problem bigotry (i.e., certain cultural and ‘values’ problems), as Hillary says; or is it instead corruption (i.e., certain economic and governmental problems), as Bernie says?

These are two very different conceptions of what the U.S. Presidency is about.

And that’s the central choice in the Democratic Presidential primaries. More than anything else, that’s what the choice between Clinton and Sanders comes down to.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu threaten to invade Syria. Thousands of Turkish forces are mobilized along border areas. 

So far talk is just bluster. For how long remains to be seen. Everything depends on what Washington intends. Escalated war is more likely than backing off.

On Thursday, the Kurdish Hawar news agency ANHA reported dozens of Turkish military vehicles advancing about 200 meters into Aleppo province.

A trench between the towns of Sorka and Meydan Ekbis is being dug. Concrete wall construction continues. The area is mainly Kurdish.

Turkish forces continue heavy cross-border shelling, the international community doing nothing to stop it. Meaningless rhetoric substitutes for action – Erdogan permitted to attack Syrian territory, a flagrant international law breach.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported hundreds of terrorists entering Syrian territory late Wednesday through the Bab al-Salam border crossing – “under the Turkish authorities’ supervision, heading towards Azaz city.”

Erdogan is taking full advantage of Wednesday’s Ankara terrorist blast, a likely state-sponsored false flag, conveniently timed, wrongfully blamed on Kurdish freedom fighters – accused before the smoke cleared.

Evidence takes time to collect and evaluate. Kurds and an alleged Syrian refugee were blamed within hours of the incident, a clear indication of pre-planned finger-pointing – Turkish officials also outrageously claiming Syrian and Russian involvement.

Erdogan won’t invade Syria unilaterally, or together with Saudi forces, without US permission.

Syrian army spokesman Talal Salu said invading foreign troops “would become targets for the Russian air force and (government artillery) should they enter Syrian territory.”

Retaliation would likely follow anything greater than provocative border area intrusions. Whether full-scale invasion is planned remains to be seen.

On Friday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia is committed to “preserving the territorial and political integrity of all countries in the region, including Syria.”

He stressed Putin’s commitment to “defeat terrorists in order to resolve the crisis.”

RT International interviewed Assad’s political advisor Bouthaina Shaaban. She minced no words, saying:

“Anyone who carries arms against civilians, against government, against institutions is a terrorist.”

“Political opposition should be dealing with politics, should be in opposition against the government but by political means, without using arms, without killing people, without beheading people.”

“Can terrorism be moderate?” The only way to stop slaughter and destruction is by “put(ting) an end to terrorism,” including ending foreign support.

As long as it continues, endless war will rage.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Precisely ten years ago (to the day), in its second bulletin of February 2006[1], warning about the imminent explosion of a «global systemic crisis”, the GEAB based its opinion on the identification of two strong signs: the end of the publication of the M3 money supply indicator[2] (suggesting a start to unusual degrees of the famous “money printing” which everyone has spoken about ever since); and the Iranian oil bourse launch – a country not yet constrained by international sanctions at the time – but a stock market based on the Euro[3]. These two strong signs enabled the GEAB team of that time to say that something big was about to happen, something which was going to bring into question the foundations of the system in which the economic-financial world was living at the time: the petrodollar and money-debt system.

Regarding the money supply, things have revolved around this subject for ten years. The initiation of this “money printing” operation, which the Americans had hoped to be discreet by ceasing the M3, had soon to be formalized via the Fed’s massive Quantitative Easing[4], and then even stopped, first relayed by the allied QE operations (about to slow down quite quickly, as well – an anticipation made by our team for six months now). End of the attempt to artificially maintain the dollar’s supremacy via the global dollar flood, and end of the system of indebtedness as a growth engine.

Regarding the sale of the Iranian oil in Euros, a major attack by a “non-aligned country” on the petrodollar system, it is particularly interesting to look at the following sequence: the announcement made by Iran regarding the launch of this oil bourse in petro-Euro early 2006, the  start of the international sanctions against this country in July 2006 causing the partial abortion of the project, then the huge attacks against the Euro through Greece from 2009 on[5], which allowed the dollar to come back to light after its tarnishing of 2008. It is even more interesting that the Greek debt crisis (although still unresolved) is finally being put aside by the media, that immediately after being freed from the sanctions Iran announced the sale of its oil in Euros … and that the next day Deutsche Bank is attacked from all sides.

One of the early assumptions we made, you may remember, is that the real “game-changer” for world supremacy of the dollar is actually the Euro. For the Euro was obviously the first currency to compete directly with the only international reserve currency status of the dollar. And when we look back for once at the sequence of the events mentioned above, one can not help thinking that the real war that took place over the past decade has been a war between the United States and Europe. A war during which the yuan, the BRICS, the New Development Bank and any alternative system to the Western system, have been quietly advancing, while the West was silently being torn a part[6].

Apparently all resistance to change is futile. Is that so…

If we were to compare what happened in 2007-8 when the crisis officially began, and this new episode which is worrying the financial world so much, a picture of the crisis of ten years is imposed upon us: the values fall experienced at the beginning of the crisis were huge, and the system was completely close to collapse. In a way, the collapse process seems as if it had been stopped just before touching the ground. Thus, it did not really break: an aborted crash somehow.

Baltic Dry Index 2006 – 2014 – Source: Business Insider[7]

And the fact is that at the time, nobody was interested in having the system broken, simply because nothing was close at hand to replace it. So: image freeze… for ten years.

Ten years during which everyone has been working hard… for better and for worse: the Chinese have refocused their economy and prepared for the inevitable transition from their world fabric status to the full-fledged economic power; the BRICS got organized and created new tools for funding mechanisms and international governance; Obama’s US helped unlock big locks planted by George W. Bush’s US (starting with the sanctions against Iran); the Russians have positioned themselves as a geopolitical counter-power; the United States of the Pentagon withdrew from many places in the world but progressed on European territory, considered as another “backyard”; the financial powers have blocked most regulatory projects that were likely to affect them… but not all of them (actually, they still lost a lot of their superb status). As for Europeans, the Euro resisted and the EU-US decoupling has still been increasing, even if a real governance of the area is still pending (… on the British referendum, as discussed further on), as well as the European common defence.

In short, eight years ago the system could not break without dragging the entire planet into a gigantic catastrophe, but today we can consider that many things are ready to “receive” the global economy as soon as the old system covers the last centimetres that separate it from the ground and the crash.

Apparently this final crash is currently underway.

The inevitable Western banking crisis, due to the shock of collapse of the oil price in dollars, is shaking the financial world. It started in China, but, as we extensively explained in our previous edition, what was shaking in China was not at all specifically Chinese: it was the Chinese part of the famous Western-centred financial system… and actually it’s already escalating to Europe.

That said, our team believes that the psychological shock (risk of government and social panic) is the most dangerous component in this banking crisis. Basically, the delusional and totally artificial valuations of the markets and banks, key players in the past financial system, one day must deflate in order to finally restructure the corresponding huge debt and have the economy restart. Besides, the giant financial power must be weakened so that governors can finally take full control of things – hoping they will continue to rule in democracy. Otherwise, this takeover by politics could end up in the pockets of the military…

Our team wishes now to further decode the forces of the global systemic crisis which gives an interesting vision from the anticipatory perspective.

When the masters of the twentieth century grounded on the shore of the 21st century, they quickly understood the new horizons opened by the emerging powers. The former “third world” – then became “developing world”, now called “emerging world” when it is actually already well “emerged” – was unfolding before their dazzled eyes. Particularly the United States, but also Europe, as a dominant club until then, rubbed their hands at the idea of a prodigious market opening at their feet.

At that point, the entire Western economy got involved body and soul into a general project of wondrous investment in order to prepare for a huge overwhelming demand. To do so, companies have come up with enthusiastic and very convincing result forecasts to obtain bank funds necessary for their new scaling. The loans were approved, convinced of a forthcoming return. Billions and billions of dollars have been printed by private banks, creating an exorbitant digital wealth based on anticipated valorisation, which nobody doubted would become real.

Let us dwell for awhile on the fundamental monetary crisis induced by that very behaviour. Everyone knows that the dollar as a currency of the second half of the twentieth century turned from a gold-supported currency to an oil-supported currency. Furthermore, the “financialisation” actually pushed it to a new stage: “the anticipated value-currency”. Indeed, when a private bank creates money to finance a project, it anticipates that this advance will create the forecasted wealth. Thus the currency remains connected to the economic reality. And the fact is that within a regularly growing economy, money actually remains money.

But, if at any time in history, delusional optimism seizes an economic system further to a false anticipation of global-scale, money becomes debt, “real debt” this time.

Well this is what has happened in 2005, and this brings into question the monetary system as it existed, as long as debt-money mingles with real money.

Indeed, the problem of the West was its failure to understand that new markets would also correspond to new competition, and that not only its own companies would benefit from the windfall, perhaps even the opposite would happen. This masterful anticipation error initially came out in 2007, and the subprime crisis was the small end of the chain of the financial system: the individuals who had been granted very easy personal loans in the wild enthusiasm based on the general economic outlook. Eight years later, it’s the other side of the chain which is catching fire: all the economy generated from this indebtedness collapses and banks, through which the crime appeared, are finally forced to admit the unreality of their value. The crisis of the CDS and of all those products that have facilitated the excessive lending process since the end of the last century, appears now to be in smoke: evaporation of ghost assets, as anticipated by the GEAB a long time ago … ten years to get there, ten years to finalise a crisis.

This description may seem frightening. Nevertheless our team continues to think the following: the “hard-landing” is primarily a beneficial “landing” even if some categories of players will leave their skin there; the world has had ten years to prepare for this outcome, which is also a solution; the banks will probably not be in default or very few will be, because the states or supra-state entities are in position now to regain control of things, contrary to ten years ago; many indicators will turn red but new indicators, already in the green, are starting to emerge; new economic dynamics (especially the whole internet-enabled collaborative economy) are already there and political systems, in command again, will not be long to find, mentor, recognize, tax them and recreate collective wealth, etc.

There will be collateral damage: by simplifying, our team is tempted to think that the “very big ones” will particularly suffer, because everything which is very big is also extremely indebted.

The oil/shale gas industry is a typical case of this debt madness: the peak oil theory in the early twenty-first century has dangled the idea of an oil price explosion which, mathematically, seemed inevitable, justifying the staggering investments based on assumptions of miraculous results. We have already seen that the ‘invented’ oil reserves are being gradually removed, since they will never be pumped; yet, they have been reported in corporate balance sheets (as a loan) and in those of the banks – evaporation of ghost assets.

Last month we anticipated serious difficulties in powerful sectors like arms, for precisely the same reasons: sin of pride, “we will cover the planet with our arms”; we will see in this issue that all the freight transport industry is in danger; we will see in the next issue that the construction sector currently valuing profits of billions in the emerging countries are making false anticipations[8]. We have also been convinced for some time now that Monsanto and other small agro-business chemists will be in big trouble… under the blow of the COP21’s effects, and by the new political control of the world.

As we have said before, our real concern is and remains the question of the democracy in this taking over by the politics. Whom will the politics serve? Order or well-being?

Notes:

[1]    Source: LEAP (old website), 15/02/2006.

[2]    Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis, 13/03/2006.

[3]    Source: The Trumpet, 12/2005.

[4]    Source: The Market Mogul.

[5]    Source: Wikipedia.

[6]    Obviously the « NATO-ization » of Europe started in 2014 should be viewed with the same glasses.

[7]    We will speak of this later on, but this index is about to fall below 300, a 50% fall compared to the last currencies … which is nothing compared to its fall from 11,000 to 600 in 2008… but they are the last centimetres before the bankruptcy wave.

[8]    Source : Les Echos, 03/07/2015

 The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces have liberated the remaining points under terrorist control in the cities of Harasta and Douma. Thus, the government forces gained full control over the Homs-Damascus highway. Next expected targets of the SAA are the pockets in northern Douma and the Industrial District of Harasta.

The Kurdish YPG units engaged in heavy fighting with the militant groups in neighborhoods of Bani Zeid and al-Ashrafiyeh and seized the hospital of Hanan in the Aleppo city. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains complicated.

The SAA is continuing an advance along the Salamiyah-Raqqa highway clashing ISIS in the area. According to reports, the SAA is in 5 km west of Marina.

At least 28 people have been killed and 61 injured in a car explosion in the center of Ankara. The scene of the explosion took place at 16:30 GMT and is located in close proximity to Turkey’s parliament, the Presidency of the General Staff, and Army, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard commands. The attack was originally targeting military buses at traffic lights.

There isn’t information about the organizers of the attack but it comes in a serious time for the country since Turkey has been conducting massive operations against the Kurds and the Assad government forces in Northern Syria.

On Feb.17, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan said Turkey wants to establish a secure zone 10km within Syria which would include the town of Azaz. Turkey has been attempting to implement a kind of this plan for a long time. The recent attack could be used as a casus belli to launch a military intervention. SotuhFront: Analysis & Intelligence remembers Erdogan’s government already consternated a significant military force, the 2nd Army at the Syrian border.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help:

PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

In 2016, Greece faces a series of external and internal challenges shaping the situation in the country. The ongoing migration crisis and a new phase of economic reform which includes a plan to cut the country’s pension system are the most sensitive issues. Considering the pensions form one of the last social safety nets in a country where at least a quarter of the active population is unemployed, the threat of social unrest and political volatility has become especially acute.

On February 13, thousands of Greek farmers set up a protest camp in central Athens to rally against tax and pension reforms required by the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Union workers also joined the protesting farmers in Syntagma Square. Earlier, hundreds clashed with police at the Agriculture Ministry.About 10,000 demonstrators were in attendance. The violance was condudcted by the Alexis Tsipras’ government plans to raise pension contributions and taxes to deal with Greece’s budget deficit.

At the moment, Tsipras keeps a majority in the Greek Parliament by only three seats. Thus, any small rebellion within the ruling coalition could topple the government. The very same time the government, must convince creditors abroad that Greece is making enough progress to receive financial help. The biggest political challenge is keeping the government together in the face of the people’s discontent fueled by the EU bureaucracy’s policy over the Greek crisis.

Another challenge is the migration crisis which is straining Greece’s relationships in Northern Europe. Some countries believe that Athens should do more to stem the influx of asylum seekers into the European Union. Amid the EU officials’ inability to overcome the migration problems, the North European countries, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia have declared their willingness to block the so-called Balkan route by their own efforts. According to Slovakian Minister of Foreign Affairs Miroslav Lajcak, it is wrong to rely on Turkey to resolve the refugee problem. This move is contrary to the official Brussel strategy. They also could support the idea that Greece should be suspended from the Schengen Agreement, which eliminates border controls on the Continent.

While debt relief and the refugee crisis are supposed to be separate issues, they will continue to be the sides of the single problem: inability of the EU leadership to solve the problems of member states with any suitable measures. The EU bureaucracy is pushing the own agenda pursing own political and financial goals which often in contrary to the moves needed to solve the complex crisis of the European Union.

Support South Front! PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The fireball from this week’s blast in Ankara had barely begun to fade before the world begun bracing itself for the predictable accusation that Syria’s Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) were behind the blast. This is because Turkey has developed a transparently cynical strategy of staging blasts throughout its territory and behind to stoke fears, justify condemnation and retaliation and demonize not only it own enemies, but those of its partners in NATO and particularly, those of the United States.

Syria’s YPG was the obvious target of this blast and the barrage of accusations and threats that quickly followed because it is the YPG together with Syrian and Russian forces that now threaten to finally foil the US-NATO-GCC proxy by closing the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor, and specifically, the pivotal city of Azaz, located in Syria right along the Syrian-Turkish border.

For years Azaz has served as a nexus for foreign-backed militant operations not only in northern Syria, but as a logistical hub supplying terrorist operations all throughout the country. Its seizure by either Syria’s Kurdish YPG or the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) would effectively hobble US-NATO-GCC’s proxy war, at least in the north.

Tripping in a Tangled Web of Treachery

Over the past week, Turkey has been shelling Syrian territory, concentrating its firepower on a southwest road leading to the city of Azaz. Kurdish YPG forces have been advancing up the road, lined on both sides by small farmers and accompanying civilian houses in a bid to liberate the city long-held by both IS (Islamic State) and Al Qaeda affiliates including Jabhat al Nusra (a US State Department listed foreign terrorist organization).

Despite the bombardment, the fate of US-NATO-GCC backed terrorists held up there is inevitably doomed. Just after the blast and amid threats by Ankara to retaliate not only against the YPG, but he Syrian government itself, some 500 terrorists described as “Islamists” by the London Guardian crossed over the Turkish border and headed to Azaz as reinforcements.

Keen readers will notice the term “Islamist” is often used as a somewhat more ambiguous label to avoid accurately describing the fighters as either Al Qaeda affiliates or IS itself. Together with continued artillery fire from Turkey, what the world now sees is NATO openly fighting a combined arms battle against Syria alongside Al Qaeda shock troops.

Ankara’s threats against the YPG and the Syrian government is particularly ironic. The Washington Post in its report “Turkey accuses a Syrian Kurd of bombing Ankara and vows to retaliate,” claims:

[Turkish Prime Minister] Davutoglu said he also held embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible because Assad and his government have acknowledged on a number of occasions that they provide arms to the YPG.

However, this logic quickly breaks down when one considers the United States has also acknowledged on a number of occasions that it provided not only arms to the YPG, but also aircover.

Perhaps the United States and their junior partners in Ankara believe the public has forgotten such headlines as that in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Airdrops Weapons and Supplies to Besieged Syrian Kurds in Kobani,” which reported:

The U.S. dropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies to Syrian Kurds fighting Islamic State extremists in the embattled city of Kobani, U.S. officials said Sunday. Three U.S. C-130 cargo planes began dropping the weapons and supplies, provided by Kurdish authorities in Iraq, on Sunday, the officials said. Over several hours, the U.S. dropped 27 bundles of small arms, ammunition and supplies.

The London Guardian’s “US-led air strikes hit key Isis targets amid battle with Kurdish forces,” points out that:

US-led coalition jets struck Islamic State positions in north-east Syria for the second day in a row on Saturday, in an area where the militants are battling Kurdish forces, a Kurdish official and a group monitoring the war said.

Despite the “logic” underpinning Ankara’s accusations and threats against both the YPG and Damascus, none should expect similar threats or retaliations to materialize against the United States, who has maintained a military presence for decades inside Turkey, itself a NATO member since the conclusion of the Second World War.

Instead, what we see is the total breakdown in the US-NATO-GCC narrative used to carry this conflict onward since 2011. The battle along Syria’s border is clearly not about any threat the YPG or the Syrian government pose to Turkey or any other NATO or GGC member. Instead, the battle along the border is clearly about the imminent strangulation of US-NATO-GCC supply lines that have fed what is now clearly appearing to be a foreign invasion, not a “civil war.”

When Syria’s borders are closed, and the “civil war” evaporates, it will be proof-positive of the ploy these foreign powers have attempted to play against Syria, and will ultimately derail similar conspiracies being organized and arrayed against other nations across the entire planet.

For the people of Turkey, with yet another blast tearing through their capital and spilling the blood of their brothers and sisters, once again coincidentally times to break a geopolitical impasse their current government faces amid its schemes abroad, they are surely taking stock of the increasing price they have so far paid for this conflict, and extrapolating the debt they will incur should it be allowed to continue on even a day further.

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

In view of the fact that, in 1947, the then newly-established United Nations represented just 57 states internationally – an obvious global minority -whereas there are now nearly 200 independent member states representing the entire global demographic, there would appear to be a legitimate case to re-submit a formal application to the United Nations International Court of Justice to rule on the competence of the UN General Assembly of 1947 to have partitioned the then region of Palestine against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants i.e. the million indigenous Palestinian Arabs, in order to facilitate the migration to there of hundreds of thousands of stateless refugees from post-war Europe, on the tenuous hypothesis that nearly two thousand years previously there had been, according to a subsequent biblical text written centuries later, a Hebrew settlement somewhere in the region.

In effect, for a newly constituted, minority representative United Nations to have resolved to partition the land of Palestine, in the Muslim Middle East,  to accommodate the victims of a war on another continent, i.e. Europe, upon the wishes of an AIPAC-influenced, American president, Harry S Truman, would appear to have been an illegitimate act of international expropriation. A concerted effort of political expediency by a lobby-influenced America to dispose of the inconvenient problem of hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens from war-torn Germany, France, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere in Europe who had lost their families, homes and livelihoods, and to dump them in a foreign land thereby divesting Europe, and America, of any liability.

It should be clearly noted that all of the Middle East states affected by the proposal to establish a foreign entity in their midst, formally voted against the proposed UN resolution and gave clear notice to the then United Nations General Assembly that such a resolution would be considered an act of war against the indigenous population and that such an illegitimate act of forced settlement would never be acceptable.   And it never has been.

‘In the face of increasing violence after World War II, the British handed the issue of Palestine over to the recently established United Nations. The result was Resolution 181(II), a plan to partition Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Jewish state was to receive around 56% of the land area of Mandate Palestine, encompassing 82% of the Jewish population, though it would be separated from Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by most of the Jewish population, but rejected by much of the Arab populace. On 29 November 1947, the resolution to recommend to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.’

‘The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the resolution, with 10 abstentions.

Resolution 181(II): PART I: Future constitution and government of Palestine: A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE: Clause 3 provides:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, … shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

The Arab countries (all of whom had vehemently opposed the plan) proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, but the resolution was at that time rejected.

Brussels 06/92/2016          160206_02_enIA

STATEMENT

Statement by the Spokesperson on the latest developments in Area C of the occupied Palestinian territory

In the past weeks there have been a number of developments in Area C of the West Bank, which risk undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and driving the parties yet further apart.

On 25 January Israel decided to declare 154 hectares of land near Jericho in the West Bank as state land, and according to the latest reports, decisions have been taken to permit further settlement expansion, involving more than 150 new residential units. On 3 February several Palestinian residential structures in the south Hebron hills were demolished. This is particularly concerning both because of the extent of the demolitions and also the number of vulnerable individuals affected, including children who need support.

Demolitions included EU funded structures. EU humanitarian activities are carried out in full accordance with international humanitarian law, with the sole aim of providing humanitarian support to most vulnerable people. We call on the Israeli authorities to reverse the decisions taken and to halt further demolitions.

On 18 January Foreign Ministers in the Council conclusions confirmed the EU’s firm opposition to Israel’s settlement policy and actions taken in this context, including demolitions and confiscation, evictions, forced transfers or restrictions of movement and access.

FOR FURTHER DETAILS:

• http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2016/160206_02_en.htm

• 2014 resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council relating to the question of Palestine
• https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC183L2Add36.pdf

[email protected]         London  February 2016

On February 14th, 2016, the UK Government announced that it would be setting up guidelines to prevent public bodies from supporting — through their procurement and investment policies — the legal and human rights of the brutally persecuted Palestinian people. This is despite the fact that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign — similar to the sanctions tactic successfully employed against Apartheid South Africa — is a peaceful and effective method of forcing the Israeli Government to cease its arrogant disregard for international law.

As a followup to this announcement, the invertebrate British Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock, dutifully grovelled his way over to Israel — for a joint press conference in Jerusalem with that despicable racist war criminal Netanyahu — to oblige his rapacious hosts with the view that London supported the directive “because we believe in an open and free trade and we believe that discrimination is not appropriate and should be stood up to.” This pathetic excuse for a representative of the British people was apparently oblivious of the fact that immigrant Israelis on both illegally occupied and stolen Palestinian lands, had for almost 70 years barbarically discriminated against the indigenous population.

The  hypocrisy and double standards of most Western leaders is not a  phenomenon that evolved by chance, but is one that came about as a result of well-financed and organised Zionist Jewish lobby groups that exist throughout Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and Western Europe. Yes, there is even a SAIPAC (South African Israel Public Affairs Committee) in Cape Town. Such parastatal organisations and faux-NGOs routinely exploit lawfare — the illegitimate use of domestic or international law to discredit and criminalise individuals or organisations — to spread propaganda and/or influence public opinion with a view to forcing their respective countries of residence to embrace the Israeli narrative and stifle any public debate whenever the subject of Israel’s criminality is raised.

Thanks to the Zionist hijacking of their governments, Most Western nations are selective in their condemnation of racial discrimination and crimes against humanity.

The lawfare tactic is supported by a worldwide network of Israel’s diaspora allies known as sayanim — local Jews in their countries of residence — who having received email alerts from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, will take all necessary steps to intimidate, pressurise, or simply bribe  individuals in the media and politics to adopt pro-Israel positions that are neither moral nor in the best interests of their own countries. By distorting and suppressing any criticism of Israel, they pre-empt the potential implementation of any initiatives that might undermine either Israel’s economy or the world’s perception of Israel as an innocent victim just defending itself. Needless to say, Netanyahu — never one to miss an opportunity — drew parallels between efforts to boycott Israel,  the long history of anti-Semitism, and the international community’s alleged anti-Israel bias. Netanyahu also emphasised his gratitude to Britain by stating that “I want to commend the British government for refusing to discriminate against Israel and Israelis and I commend you for standing up for the one and only true democracy in the Middle East.” Only democracy in the Middle East? How is that for fascist chutzpah?

Another recent headline-grabbing event was the interrogation by British anti-terrorism police of a student who wore a “Free Palestine” badge and wristbands to school. Rather than encouraging their pupils to learn about and support human rights, teachers at the Challney High School for Boys in Luton reported Rahmaan Mohammadi to the police for what can only be described as his commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which starts of by categorically stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Supporting such sentiments in Britain is now apparently a crime, and the teachers’ action in this case is reminiscent of the Nazi era when the roles were reversed and schoolchildren were groomed to report any “subversive” thoughts by their teachers, friends, neighbours, and even their own parents. In Britain, the existence of a Zionist Thought Police is now a reality and their suppression of free speech is killing off what little is left of British democracy.

This latest British government directive is no doubt an effort to keep in step with recent legislation in the U.S. where some states have made it illegal to either divest from Israel or to promote a boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will also stipulate — at the instigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — that the U.S. is obliged to take retaliatory action against any European country endeavouring to boycott Israel including the West Bank settlements which the empowering legislation views as part of Israel proper. Apart form committing $25 million to a new anti-BDS task force — an admission of the BDS campaign’s effectiveness —  Israel is also working to create a mechanism for global internet censorship with a ban on any material critical of its criminal policies which it has euphemistically branded as “incitement.” Consequently Facebook and other social networking sites have started deleting from their sites any “hate speech” or “terrorism” related material including criticism of Israel which is of course “anti-Semitic.”

Policing of the internet is maintained by ever-watchful Zionist organisations including the Zionist Federation of Australia; the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM); the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) in Canada; the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF) in France; the Zionist Federation of New Zealand; and AIPAC in the United States. The financial and political power of such groups should not be underestimated and their access to government policy making ensures protection of Israel which for example in France has included legislation of hate crimes that de facto protects Jews by limiting one’s ability to criticise Israel. This has led to a French court declaring that a peaceful protest promoting the BDS campaign against Israel was illegal. So much for France’s motto of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”

All of this reminds me of the famous and provocative poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

A FNSL ‘from below’ could be organized from among local assemblies, committees, groups and initiatives consisting of the victims of globalization (namely, the vast majority of the world’s population) who ought to join as ordinary citizens, irrespective of party affiliations and ideologies or religious and other differences, as long as they share the ultimate aim of national and economic sovereignty. The intermediate target should be the exit from the international institutions of the NWO like the EU, so that the victims of globalization could escape the present process of economic catastrophe.

Then, once the people of a particular country have broken with this criminal “Order”, they should join with peoples from other countries, also fighting for the same aims, to form new political and economic unions of sovereign Nations and the corresponding democratically-organized international institutions together, within a new international community of self- reliant nations based on the principle of mutual aid rather than competitiveness––the guiding principle behind the present criminal NWO. As long as the member countries share complementary production structures, the possibility of an involuntary transfer of economic surplus from some countries  (usually  the  weaker  ones,  as  is  the  case  in  the  EU)  to  other countries in the Union can be ruled out. Therefore, a collective kind of self- reliance could be achieved within the economic area covered by such a union, which should be based on the sovereignty of each participating country.

In other words, a FNSL would function as a catalyst for fundamental political and economic change, which is the only kind of change that could get us out of the current mire, while also revealing the attempted deception by the globalist “Left”, according to which we could somehow emerge from this catastrophe even without leaving the EU – as DIEM

 Notes:

1 Pepe Escobar, “It takes a Greek to save Europa”, RT, 11/2/2016,  https://www.rt.com/op- edge/332169-europe-diem25-yanis-varoufakis/

2  It should  be noted that the ‘Manifesto’s’  options  were also approved,  albeit indirectly,  by

George Soros, one of Varoufakis’s strongest supporters, who stressed at the same time that “Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration, and the best way to do so is to flood Europe with Syrian refugees.” (G. Soros, “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis”, The Guardian, 11/2/2016 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/11/putin-threat- europe-islamic-state

3 Y. Varoufakis,  A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, February 2016

4 See the official site of the European Round Table of Industrialists  http://www.ert.eu

See also the film by Friedrich Moser & Matthieu Lietaert, The Brus$€ls Business : Who Runs the European Union? (2012) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4C5SgeVK-Q

5 Takis Fotopoulos,  Τhe Transnational Elite and the NWO as “conspiracies” The International

Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014)

6 Y. Varoufakis, A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, op.cit.

 7 Takis Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy, (London/NY: Cassell/Continuum,1997), chs 5- 6

 8 see unofficial transcript of DIEM25 speeches at  https://pad.riseup.net/p/DiEM25_Transcript

9 See Takis Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy, (Cassell/Taylor & Francis, 1997).

10 See Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action: War and economic violence, from the Middle East through Greece to Ukraine (under publication by Progressive Press), Parts I

& III

11 See Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action, op.cit. ch 6

12 Paul Krugman, “The austerity delusion”, Guardian, 29/4/2015

13 Anthony H. Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, (London: Routledge, 1993) p. 58.

14 Bhikhu Parekh, “The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy”, Political,  Volume 40, Issue Supplement s1,  pages 160–175, August 1992

15   According  to  Aristotle,  “…I  say  that  the  appointment  by  lot  is  commonly  held  to  be

characteristic of democracy, whereas the process of election for that purpose is looked upon as oligarchic”; Aristotle, Politics, Book IV, 1294b, John Warrington, ed. (London: Heron Books)

16 Anthony Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, o.p.  p. 50.

17 John Dunn, “Conclusion” in. Democracy, the Unfinished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993, pp. 247-48.

18   Varoufakis, A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, op.cit.

19 ibid.

20 Takis Fotopoulos, “The real causes of the catastrophic crisis in Greece and the “Left”,  The

International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2013)

21 Editorial, “The People’s Revolt”, The Times, 11/10/2014

22 “Globalization is barbarous, multinationals rule world” – Marine Le Pen, RT, 10/1/2015 http://rt.com/news/212435-france-pen-globalization-barbarity/

23 Adam Thomson, “France’s far-right National Front seeks voters from the left”, Financial

Times, 4/1/2015

24 ibid.

25 Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Roula Khalaf, “Marine Le Pen lays out radical vision to govern France”, Financial Times, 5/3/2015

26 G. Soros, “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis”, The Guardian, 11/2/2016

27 Francis Elliott et al. ‘Working class prefers Ukip to Labour”, The Times, 25/11/2014

28 Takis Fotopoulos, “Globalisation, the reformist Left and the Anti-Globalisation ‘Movement’”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, vol.7, no.2 (July 2001) http://www.democracynature.org/vol7/takis_globalisation.htm

 29 see unofficial transcript of DIEM25 speeches at https://pad.riseup.net/p/DiEM25_Transcript. See also the video itself at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFNJYpwv39s

30 See the “Open letter on the future of Ukraine”, signed by scores of Zizek-type globalization intellectuals, politicians et al, which declares their admiration for the Ukrainian ‘revolutionaries’: “They defended their democracy and their future 10 years ago, during the Orange Revolution, and they are standing up for those values again today “, euobserver, 27/1/2014  http://euobserver.com/opinion/122880

31 This section is based on Part VI of the forthcoming book The New World Order in Action: War and economic violence, from the Middle East through Greece to Ukraine, op.cit.

Russian intervention in Syria has not only improved the military situation on the ground for the SAA [Syrian Arab Army] and allies, Iran and Hezbollah.  Russia has succeeded where, previously, the UN and the US have failed.

Russia has, apparently,  negotiated with the US and achieved the delivery of 18 trucks, every two weeks,  of humanitarian aid to the beleaguered and battered Idlib villages of Kafarya & Foua. It is also hoped that a mobile hospital clinic will be delivered along with at least two lorries of essential fuel.

This information came in last night from Dr Ali al-Mostafa, chief surgeon for both villages.  Dr al-Mostafa has been working under punishing conditions since the full siege of Kafarya and Foua intensified from March 2015 onwards.  Prior to that, Kafarya & Foua had been under partial siege, with sporadic shelling and incursions from the Ahrar al Sham and Al Nusra factions converging on the largely defenceless and isolated homesteads.

In these five years, 1700 people have been killed by the crude hell cannon mortars or the US supplied missiles fired regularly upon this tightly knit community.  Since March 2015 when the ring of terror tightened, 300 have died from terrorist shelling, sniping,  terrorists digging tunnels under houses and detonating them or simply from starvation or lack of basic medical supplies. These people have lived with the daily threat of terrorist incursions into the villages which would have resulted in a massacre of this entire community.

Ahrar al Sham terrorists preparing rockets in preparation for bombardment of Kafarya and Foua.

“Infant Rimas Al-Nayef was one of at least 5 children killed by NATO-backed terrorists’ shelling on August 10, 2015 in the northwestern Syrian village of Foua. Another 25 residents were killed by the up to 1,500 rockets and mortars which Jebhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorist factions rained down on Foua and neighbouring Kafarya village, just north of Idlib. Scores more were injured on that day alone.” ~ Eva Bartlett:  Untold Suffering in Kafarya and Foua

One year old Rimas, murdered by Western backed terrorists. Photo taken in Kafarya and Foua and supplied to 21WIRE.

The only food supplies during the interminable months leading up to January 2016 were from precarious and extremely risky Syrian Air Force drops into the villages.  Stories of the dangers of leaving the shelter of their homes to collect the bread from the open fields where they were targets for the terrorist snipers, abounded in our media news-feeds last year but were completely ignored by mainstream media intent on portraying the Syrian Government as the villain of the piece, not the Western backed murderers and mercenaries laying siege to the villages.

“Now and then helicopters can reach the area and air-drop supplies, by parachute, including fuel. The helicopters can’t come close, so they drop supplies from a great height. but because it’s from so high up, many times the supplies misses the villages. When there are battles, the helicopters cannot reach the area.”  ~ Untold Suffering in Foua and Kafarya

In the last two weeks alone, information has been sent through to us of the worsening and heartbreaking humanitarian situation in Kafarya and Foua.

On the 17th February 2016, journalist, Eva Bartlett informed us of the Western backed terrorist murder of a 10 year old boy, Najeb, in al Foua village.  Shot through the heart.

“A Syrian friend messaged me, his voice barely coherent in his grief, mourning the murder of his 10 year old cousin in al-Foua, northern Syria.

Eva, I lost my cousin today, in al-Foua. His name was Najeb Ahmad hallak. The terrorists killed him, he was just 10 years old. They shot him through his heart.

I hate this life, Eva.

Green-eyed Najeb was returning from school when sniped by western-backed “moderate” “rebels”. He was the youngest of the family.”     ~   Remembering Ten Year Old Najeb, Shot Dead by Western Terrorists

10 year old Najeb, shot dead by Western backed terrorists in al Foua. Photo supplied by Eva Bartlett.

This child was torn from his family by Western backed terrorists using Western and Gulf supplied arms, smuggled in through Turkey.  While the Western and Gulf media keep Madaya in the spotlight spawning whole new NGO hydra heads focused on the reported Syrian Government sieges in Syria, this Western backed terrorist siege is swept under the media carpet because it would damage their propaganda road map that rides rough shod over the truth that the Syrian people are living through every day of their lives.

Soros backed Syria Campaign is running with their “Break the Siege” publicity, of course, demonizing the Syrian Government with the usual wild, unverified accusations.  The Syria Institute also partnered with PAX another Soros backed NGO has its own rendition doing the social media rounds of “Siege Watch“.  “Siege” is the new NATO buzz word to bring shame upon the Syrian government and army and nowhere in Western terrorist occupied Syria is safe from its application.  Not even Aleppo, reduced to one fifth of its normal size by the Al Nusra & ISIS occupation and terrorization, currently being liberated by the SAA and allies contrary to the Western/Gulf media portrayal.

Back to Kafarya and Foua.

On the 6th February, I reported on the death from starvation of tiny baby Zahraa:

“Yesterday tiny baby Zahra succumbed to starvation in Kafarya and Foua.

There will be no outrage from Western or Gulf media.  There will be no crocodile tears.  There will be no outpouring of venom against the Saudi wahhabi terrorist gangs that have ensured her death.  There will be no investigation.  There will be no Avaaz petitions.  There will be no Ken Roth tweets.  Robert Ford will barely raise an eyebrow.

Zahra will die unnoticed and ignored except by her extended family in Kafarya & Foua who have watched her wither away,  helplessly, unable to alleviate her suffering.” ~ Video and Report

On 12th February, I reported on this distressing information being received from inside the two villages:

“One of the most heartbreaking images sent through to me is of a family member struggling to keep their relative alive by manual artificial respiration.  There is no electricity to run the machinery that would normally keep them alive.  Family members take it in turns to maintain the vital supply of oxygen or else this patient will die. Life hangs in the balance wherever you look in Kafarya and Foua.  A malevolent, hostile force camped on their doorstep and villagers starving, cold and eking a miserable existence among the remains of their homes inside these decimated villages.”  ~  Kafarya and Foua:  The Forgotten Terrorist Siege

Family member keeps their relative alive by manual artificial respiration. Photo: Kafarya and Foua.

On Valentines day, Feb 14th, I reported:

“The situation in the terrorist besieged villages of Kafarya & Foua is worsening.  Since the full siege began in March 2015 the UN has only succeeded in sending in one fuel delivery, a meagre 10,000 Litres that finally got through to the Idlib villages in January 2016.

These photos that have just been published from inside Kafarya and Foua show the desperate and ignored plight of these villagers who are struggling with starvation, lack of heat, electricity and medical supplies.” ~ Kafarya and Foua: Worsening Humanitarian Situation Ignored by UN and Media

Photo taken on location in Kafar and supplied to 21WIRE.

.
While the US, NATO and allies, including the UN,  have coldly refused to even acknowledge the suffering being endured by these villages, Russia, it appears has been able to turn the screws to the extent that perhaps now we will see some alleviation of their Western imposed plight.  It is interesting to note that, despite the UN claiming it is too dangerous to attempt a bypass of the Ahrar al Sham check points, we now see that obstacle being miraculously cleared which could suggest, once more, the US control over the terrorist factions in Syria.  Russia must be congratulated on this achievement and the people of Kafarya and Foua will perhaps, finally, feel a little of the pressure lifting.

As one relative from Kafarya and Foua said to me last night:

“For the first time since March 2015, they will receive a delivery of flour!  Finally they will be able to bake bread in their own homes again”

From September 2015:

“She [Zahraa] now prays desperately that the neighbourhood bakery will re-open because in her child’s mind that would bring back the old days of feeling safe and well fed. Days that seem so far away now in the shell shocked homes of Kafarya and Foua.” ~ A Tale of Two Villages

There are many unreported and horrific stories that will begin to emerge from Syria as the SAA sweeps this sovereign nation clean of the US NATO GCC and Israeli proxy terrorist armies that have occupied Syria for almost 5 years.  As each story is brought to light, we will see the mainstream media and its Western backed NGO allies rushing to smear the Syrian Government in an attempt to cover up what amounts to their own war crimes, as stated very clearly yesterday by Dr Al Jaafari during his UN address on recent Turkish atrocities in Syria.

I cannot conclude this article any more fittingly than with a quote from Eva Bartlett & from Syria:

“To the family of young Najeb, the latest victim of terror-snipings on al-Foua, I cite a Syrian lamenting this child’s passing:

السلام لروحك أيها الطف

“Peace upon your soul, oh child.”

Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her personal blog The Wall Will Fall.

Mr. Salah Lamrani [pictured left], French teacher of the Romain-Rolland School of Tremblay-en-France (93290), very appreciated by his students and their parents, was arbitrarily suspended from his post on February 11th, 2016, by Isabelle Chazal, HR of the Academy of Créteil, for a period of four months.

This unilateral action was taken following slanderous letters from the FCPE (Federation of parents’ councils) and the management of his establishment seriously defaming him and making illegal use of his activities as a blogger.

We ask you to take quick action to lift this unjustified suspension, to call to order the management of the school and allow students to be reunited with their teacher who they sorely miss, so that the school community can regain the serenity necessary for success of its mission.

Editors note: you can review the whole case, with all its lurid details on Salah Lamrani’s blog, updated daily, Sayed Hasan

Click here to see the last activated signatures

List of signatories in alphabetical order

To sign click here

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) does not provide GPS coordinates of health facilities it supports in Syria to either Damascus or Moscow over fears of “deliberate” attacks, the medical charity said, blaming a recent strike on “probably” Syrian or Russian forces.

Five years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal urged her to apologize to former Army officer (and ex-CIA analyst) Ray McGovern after he was roughly arrested when he stood silently with his back turned in protest against a Clinton speech, ironically condemning foreign leaders who show intolerance of dissent.

According to an internal email recently released from former Secretary Clinton’s private email server, Blumenthal cited “an unfortunate incident” that occurred at her speech at George Washington University in Washington on Feb. 15, 2011. Blumenthal wrote that “something bad happened” and urged Clinton to have someone reach out and apologize to McGovern.

Instead, Clinton, who has declared that “supporting veterans is a sacred responsibility,” denied any responsibility for McGovern’s brutal arrest, which left the 71-year-old who was wearing a “Veterans for Peace” T-shirt, bloodied and bruised. She also offered no explanation for why she failed to stop the police when the arrest was occurring right in front of her; instead she just continued on with her speech about the need for leaders to respect the rights of dissidents.

In the email, Clinton did tell Blumenthal, “I’ll see what else can be done,” but it’s not clear what that may have been. Afterwards, McGovern became a government target because of what the State Department called his “political activism, primarily anti-war.”

Though the criminal charges against McGovern were dropped, he was placed on the State Department’s “Be On the Look-out” or BOLO alert list, instructing police to “USE CAUTION, stop” and question him and also contact the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center.

After learning of the BOLO alert, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), which is representing McGovern in connection with the 2011 incident, interceded to have the warning lifted. But McGovern wondered if the warning played a role in 2014 when he was aggressively arrested by New York City police at the entrance to the 92nd Street Y where he had hoped to pose a question to a speaker there, one of Clinton’s friendly colleagues, former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus.

After that arrest on Oct. 30, 2014, McGovern wrote,

“God only knows (and then only if God has the proper clearances) what other organs of state security had entered the ‘derogatory’ information about the danger of my ‘political activism’ into their data bases. Had my ‘derog’ been shared, perhaps, with the ever-proliferating number of ‘fusion centers’ that were so effective in sharing information to track and thwart the activists of Occupy – including subversives like Quakers and Catholic Workers?”

Clinton’s Speech

On Feb. 15, 2011, McGovern attended Clinton GWU speech, deciding on the spur of the moment – after feeling revulsion at the “enthusiastic applause” that welcomed the Secretary of State –

“to dissociate myself from the obsequious adulation of a person responsible for so much death, suffering and destruction. …

“The fulsome praise for Clinton from GW’s president and the loud, sustained applause also brought to mind a phrase that – as a former Soviet analyst at CIA – I often read in Pravda. When reprinting the text of speeches by high Soviet officials, the Communist Party newspaper would regularly insert, in italicized parentheses: ‘Burniye applaudismenti; vce stoyat’ —  Stormy applause; all rise.

“With the others at Clinton’s talk, I stood. I even clapped politely. But as the applause dragged on, I began to feel like a real phony. So, when the others finally sat down, I remained standing silently, motionless, wearing my ‘Veterans for Peace’ T-shirt, with my eyes fixed narrowly on the rear of the auditorium and my back to the Secretary.

“I did not expect what followed: a violent assault in full view of Madam Secretary by what we Soviet analysts used to call the ‘organs of state security.’ The rest is history, as they say. A short account of the incident can be found here.

“As the video of the event shows, Secretary Clinton did not miss a beat in her speech as she called for authoritarian governments to show respect for dissent and to refrain from violence. She spoke with what seemed to be an especially chilly sang froid, as she ignored my silent protest and the violent assault which took place right in front of her.

“The experience gave me personal confirmation of the impression that I reluctantly had drawn from watching her behavior and its consequences over the past decade. The incident was a kind of metaphor of the much worse violence that Secretary Clinton has coolly countenanced against others.

“Again and again, Hillary Clinton – both as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State – has demonstrated a nonchalant readiness to unleash the vast destructiveness of American military power. The charitable explanation, I suppose, is that she knows nothing of war from direct personal experience.” [For more of McGovern’s account of his arrest, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton.”]

Image: Ray McGovern displaying the aftermath of his arrest during a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

In a civil court filing, the PCJF lawyers described the scene:

“As Secretary Clinton was reading from her prepared remarks regarding Egypt’s dictatorship [and] saying, ‘Then the government pulled the plug,’ the then-71-year-old McGovern was forcibly and falsely arrested by GWU police officers, grabbed by the head, assaulted, and as Secretary Clinton continued undisturbed stating, ‘the government … did not want the world to watch,’ Mr. McGovern was removed from public view with excessive and brutal force, taken to jail, and left bleeding with bruises and contusions.”

In a press release about Clinton’s emails on Thursday, McGovern’s attorneys said they had sought State Department emails related to McGovern’s arrest but had not received Clinton’s email exchange with Blumenthal. Those emails surfaced in connection with congressional inquiries about Clinton conducting State Department business using a private server outside U.S. government control.

Based on the new disclosures, it was clear Clinton knew a great deal about the incident from Blumenthal, including receiving photos of McGovern’s injuries.

Blumenthal suggested that Clinton “have someone apologize to Ray McGovern,” but referred to the incident and McGovern in condescending terms, noting that McGovern’s mistreatment has “become a minor cause célèbre on the Internet among lefties.” As for McGovern, Blumenthal said the former CIA analyst who was a presidential briefer to George H.W. Bush has “become a Christian antiwar leftist who goes around bearing witness. Whatever his views, he’s harmless.”

Clinton responded,

“I appreciate your sending thgis [sic] to me. Neither State nor my staff had anything to do w this. The man stood up just as I was starting and GW–which claims their quick actions were part of their standard operating procedures to remove anyone who stands up and starts speaking while an invited guest is talking–moved to remove him. GW claims he was not in any way injured.”

However, McGovern was not speaking, simply standing quietly until he was attacked by the police. As for Clinton, no apology was forthcoming, nor any further explanation of why she failed to stop police from roughing up a peaceful protester in her presence.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

A poll taken in Iowa before the presidential caucus found that 70% of Democrats surveyed trusted Hillary Clinton on foreign policy more than Bernie Sanders. But her record as Secretary of State was very different from that of her successor, John Kerry, who has overseen groundbreaking diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran, Cuba and, in a more limited context, even with Russia and Syria.

In fact, Clinton’s use of the term “diplomacy” in talking about her own record is idiosyncratic in that it refers almost entirely to assembling “coalitions” to support U.S. threats, wars and sanctions against other countries, rather than to peacefully resolving international disputes without the threat or use of force, as normally understood by the word “diplomacy” and as required by the UN Charter.

There is another term for what Clinton means when she says “diplomacy,” and that is “brinksmanship,” which means threatening war to back up demands on other governments. In the real world, brinksmanship frequently leads to war when neither side will back down, at which point its only value or purpose is to provide a political narrative to justify aggression.

The two main “diplomatic” achievements Clinton gives herself credit for are: assembling the coalition of NATO and the Arab monarchies that bombed Libya into endless, intractable chaos; and imposing debilitating sanctions on the people of Iran over what U.S. intelligence agencies concluded by 2007 wasa peaceful civilian nuclear program.

Clinton’s claim that her brinksmanship “brought Iran to the table” over its “nuclear weapons program” is particularly deceptive. It was in fact Secretary Clinton and President Obama who refused to take “Yes” for an answer in 2010, after Iran agreed to what was originally a U.S. proposal relayed by Turkey and Brazil. Clinton and Obama chose instead to keep ratcheting up sanctions and U.S. and Israeli threats. This was a textbook case of dangerous brinksmanship that was finally resolved by real diplomacy (and real diplomats like Kerry, Lavrov and Zarif) before it led to war.

That Clinton can peddle such deceptive rhetoric to national prime-time television audiences and yet still be considered trustworthy by many Americans is a sad indictment of the U.S. corporate media’s coverage of foreign policy, including their willful failure to distinguish between diplomacy and brinksmanship.

But Michael Crowley, now the senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, formerly with Time and the New Republic, has analyzed Clinton’s foreign policy record over the course of her career, and his research has shed light on her Iraq War vote, her personal influences and her underlying views of U.S. foreign policy, all of which deserve serious scrutiny from American voters.

The results of Crowley’s research reveal that Clinton believes firmly in the post-Cold War ambition to establish the U.S. threat or use of force as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs. She does not believe that the U.S. should be constrained by the UN Charter or other rules of international law from threatening or attacking other countries when it can make persuasive political arguments for doing so.

This places Clinton squarely in the “humanitarian interventionist” camp with her close friend and confidante Madeleine Albright, but also in underlying if unspoken agreement with the “neocons” who brought us the Iraq War and the self-fulfilling and ever-expanding “war on terror.”

Neoconservatism and humanitarian interventionism emerged in the 1990s as parallel ways to exploit the post-Cold War “power dividend,” each with its own approach to overcoming legal, diplomatic and political obstacles to the unbridled expansion of U.S. military power. In general, Democratic power brokers favored the humanitarian interventionist approach, while Republicans embraced neo-conservatism, but their underlying goals were the same: to politically legitimize U.S. hegemony in the post-Cold War era.

The most self-serving ideologues, like Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, soon mastered the nuances of both ideologies and have moved smoothly between administrations of both parties. Victoria Nuland, Dick Cheney’s deputy foreign policy adviser, became Secretary Clinton’s spokesperson and went on to plan the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Robert Kagan, who co-founded the neocon Project for the New American Century with William Kristol in 1997, was appointed by Clinton to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board in 2011.

Kagan wrote of Clinton in 2014, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

In the Clinton White House

In her husband’s White House in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton was not an outsider to the foreign policy debates that laid the groundwork for these new ideologies of U.S. power, which have since unleashed such bloody and intractable conflicts across the world.

In 1993, at a meeting between Clinton’s transition team and Bush’s National Security Council, Madeleine Albright challenged then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell on his “Powell Doctrine” of limited war. Albright asked him, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

Hillary Clinton found common ground with Albright, and has likewise derided the Powell doctrine for limiting U.S. military action to “splendid little wars” like the invasions of Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, apparently forgetting that these are the only wars the U.S. has actually won since 1945.

Hillary Clinton reportedly “insist(ed)” on Albright’s nomination as Secretary of State in December 1996, and they met regularly at the State Department during Bill Clinton’s second term for in depth foreign policy discussions aided by White House and State Department staff. Albright called their relationship “an unprecedented partnership.”

With Defense Secretary William Cohen, Albright oversaw the crystallization of America’s aggressive post-Cold War foreign policy in the late 1990s. As UN Ambassador, she maintained and justified sanctions on Iraq, even as they killed hundreds of thousands of children. As Secretary of State, she led the push for the illegal U.S. assault on Yugoslavia in 1999, which set the fateful precedent for further U.S. violations of the U.N. Charter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

James Rubin, Albright’s State Department spokesman, remembers strained phone calls between Albright and U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook during the planning for the bombing of Yugoslavia. Cook told Albright the U.K. government was having problems “with its lawyers”because attacking Yugoslavia without authorization by the UN Security Council would violate the UN Charter. Albright told him the U.K. should “get new lawyers.”

Like Secretary Albright, Hillary Clinton strongly supported NATO’s illegal aggression against Yugoslavia. In fact, she later told Talk magazine that she called her husband from Africa to plead with him to order the use of force. “I urged him to bomb,” she said, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”

After the U.S.-U.K. bombing and invasion, the NATO protectorate of Kosovo quickly descended into chaos and organized crime. Hashim Thaci, the gangster who the U.S. installed as its first prime minister, now faces indictment for the very war crimes that U.S. bombing enabled and supported in 1999, including credible allegations that he organized the extrajudicial execution of Serbs to harvest and sell their internal organs.

On Clinton’s holocaust reference, the U.S. and U.K. did carpet-bomb Germany at the height of the Nazi holocaust, but bombing could not stop the genocide of European Jews any more than it can have a “humanitarian” impact today. The Western allies’ decision to rely mainly on bombing throughout 1942 and 1943 while the Red Army’s “boots on the ground” and the civilians in the concentration camps died in their millions cast a long shadow on today’s policy debates over Syria, Iraq and Libya.

War is always an atrocity and a crime, but relying on bombing and drones to avoid putting “boots on the ground” is uniquely dangerous because it gives politicians the illusion that they can wage war without political risk. In the longer term, from London in the Blitz to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos to Islamic State and drone victims today, bombing has always been the surest way to provoke righteous anger, stiffen resistance and reap a whirlwind of blowback. The 140,000 bombs and missiles the U.S. and its allies have rained down on at least seven countries since 2001 are the poisonous seeds of a harvest of intractable conflict that is still gathering strength after14 years of war.

The Clinton administration formalized its illegal doctrine of unilateral military force in its 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, declaring, “When the interests at stake are vital… we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power. U.S. vital national interests include… preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition… (and) ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.”

Arguments based on “vital interests” are dangerous precisely because they are politically persuasive to the citizens of any country. Butthis is precisely the justification for war that the U.N. Charter was designed to prohibit, as the U.K.’s senior legal adviser, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, explained to his government during the Suez crisis in 1956. He wrote, “The plea of vital interest, which has been one of the main justifications for wars in the past, is indeed the very one which the UN Charter was intended to exclude.”

Senator Clinton’s Iraq war vote

Sixteen years after the bombing of Yugoslavia, bombing to “prevent holocausts” and wars to “defend” ill-defined and virtually unlimited U.S. interests have succeeded only in launching a new holocaust that has killed at least 1.6 million people and plunged a dozen countries into intractable chaos. As Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee wrote of his colleagues who voted to authorize war on Iraq in 2002, “Helping a rogue President start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment...”

As the results of that decision keep spinning farther out of control, it seems increasingly remarkable that U.S. officials who authorized a warbased on lies with millions of lives in the balance still have careers in public policy. If it costs Clinton another presidential nomination, that is a small price to pay when weighed against the holocaust she helped to unleash on tens of millions of people. But what if her vote for an illegal and devastating war was not a momentary “lapse of judgment”, but was in fact consistent with her views then and her views now?

As the Bush administration lobbied Senators to support the Iraq AUMF in 2002, Senator Clinton had several private chats with Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, an old friend from Yale Law School. An unnamed Bush official, possibly Hadley, told Michael Crowley, “I was kind of pleasantly surprised by her attitude.”

But Albright’s former assistant James Rubin was not surprised by Clinton’s vote on Iraq. He found it consistent with the position of the Clinton administration and Albright’s State Department that U.S. “diplomacy” must be backed up by the threat of military force. “I think there is a connection to her vote,” Rubin told Michael Crowley, “which is recognizing that the right combination of force and diplomacy (sic) can achieve America’s objectives. Sometimes, to get things done – like getting inspectors back into Iraq – you do have to be prepared to threaten force.”

But this evades the critical question of U.S. obligations under the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat and use of force. Senator Levin introduced an amendment to the Iraq AUMF bill that would have only authorized the use of force if it was approved by the UN Security Council. Senator Clinton voted against that amendment, making it clear that she supported the threat and use of force against Iraq whether it was legal or not.

Clinton has defended her vote on the basis of providing a credible threat of force to back up the call for inspections, in keeping with her long-standing preference for threats and brinksmanship over diplomacy. But the problem with threats of force is that they often lead to the use of force, as we have now seen repeatedly since the U.S. has embraced this aggressive and illegal approach to international affairs. This is exactly why the UN Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force. The absolute priority of world leaders in 1945 was peace, and so the UN Charter prohibited both the threat and use of force, based on bitter experience of how the one so easily leads to the other.

The fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy since the 1980s has been to renounce peace as an overriding priority and to politically legitimize U.S. war-making. The U.S. has therefore, without public debate, abandoned FDR’s post-WWII “permanent structure of peace” based on the UN Charter. The U.S. also withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, after it found the U.S. guilty of aggression against Nicaragua in 1986, and it likewise rejects the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court.

U.S. government lawyers now pass off political arguments as legal cover for aggression, torture, killing civilians and other war crimes, secure in the knowledge that they will never be forced to defend their legally indefensible opinions in impartial courts. When President Bush unveiled his illegal “doctrine of preemption” in 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy called it, “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.” But the same must be said of this entire decades-long effort by the Clintons, Bushes, Albright, Cheney and others to liberate the U.S. military industrial complex from the restraints placed upon it by the rule of international law.

Secretary of State – Iraq and Afghanistan

Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were consistent with her role working with her husband and Madeleine Albright in the 1990s, and in the Senate with the Bush administration, to fundamentally corrupt U.S. foreign policy. Robert Gates’s book,Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, has provided revealing insights into Clinton’s personal contributions to White House foreign policy debates on the vital issues of Obama’s first term, in which she was always the most hawkish of Obama’s senior advisers, more hawkish than his Republican Secretary of Defense.

At Clinton’s first “town hall” with foreign service officers at the State Department, Steve Kashkett of the American Foreign Service Association asked Clinton how soon the State Department’s deployment of 1,200 staff to the massive U.S. occupation headquarters in Baghdad would be reduced “to that of a normal diplomatic mission” to ease critical understaffing at other U.S. embassies all over the world.

Clinton instead launched a “civilian surge,” doubling the already overweight State Department deployment in Baghdad to 2,400. When the Iraqi government refused to allow 3,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to protect the embassy staff – and Clinton had wanted even more than that – she hired 7,000 heavily-armed mercenaries to do the job instead.

As Clinton doubled down on the failed U.S. effort to control a puppet government in Iraq whose courageous people’s resistance had already made U.S. military occupation unsustainable, she was also keen to put the lives of more U.S. troops on the line in the even longer-running quagmire in Afghanistan.

When President Obama took office, there were 34,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but only 645 had been killed in 7 years of combat. A Pew poll found that only 18% of Afghans surveyed wanted more U.S. troops in their country.

Secretary Clinton backed Obama’s first decision to commit an additional 30,000 troops to the war. Then, in mid-2009, General McChrystal submitted a request for a second increase of 40,000 troops. He also submitted a classified assessment that a genuine campaign to defeat the Taliban and its allies would require 500,000 U.S. troops for five years, acknowledging that neither 65,000 nor 105,000 troops could possibly achieve that.

Clinton supported McChrystal’s request and was eager to match it with a State Department “civilian surge” like the one in Iraq. Among Obama’s other advisers, Vice President Biden opposed any further escalation, while Secretary Gates recommended a smaller increase of 30,000 troops, which was what Obama ultimately approved.

When Obama and his aides debated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Clinton was again the most hawkish, arguing for no reduction in troop strength until 2013. In a typically arbitrary political compromise, Obama split the difference between Clinton and the doves and ordered the first withdrawals to begin in September 2012.

By the time the U.S. “combat mission” ended in 2014, 2,356 U.S. troops had met their deaths in the “graveyard of empires“. In 2016, the Taliban and its allies control more of Afghanistan than at any time since 2001, as they fight to expel the 10,000 U.S. troops still deployed there. A complete withdrawal of foreign troops has always been the Taliban’s first precondition for opening serious peace talks with the government, so the 2009-10 escalations, which Clinton backed to the hilt, served only to kill 1,711 more Americans and tens of thousands of Afghans, prolonging the war and undermining diplomacy in the futile hope of saving acorrupt regime of U.S.-backed warlords and drug-lords.

President Obama’s latest plan, to keep at least 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, ensures that the war will continue into the next administration, even as Islamic State begins to move into another failed state already devastated by more than 60,000 U.S. bombs and missiles.

Secretary of State – Libya and Syria

President Obama’s advisers were even more divided over launching a new war to overthrow the government of Libya. Despite Secretary Gates telling a Congressional hearing that the first phase of a “no-fly zone” would be a bombing campaign to destroy Libyan air defenses, a Pew poll found that, while 44% of the public supported a “no-fly zone,” only 16% supported “bombing Libyan air defenses.” Even after being caught with its pants down over Iraq, the U.S. corporate media has not lost its talent for confusing Americans into war.

Secretary Gates wrote in Duty that he was so opposed to U.S. intervention in Libya that he considered resigning. President Obama was so undecided that he called his final decision a “51-49 call.” The other advocates for bombing were UN Ambassador Rice and National Security Council staffers Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, so Secretary Clinton was the most senior, and almost certainly the decisive voice in sealing the fate of Muammar Gaddafi and the people of Libya.

Despite a UN resolution that authorized military force only to “protect civilians,” the U.S. and its allies intervened to support forces who were explicitly fighting to overthrow the Libyan government. NATO and its Arab monarchist allies conducted 7,700 air strikes in seven months, while NATO warships shelled coastal cities. The rebel forces on the ground, including Islamist fundamentalists, were trained and led on the ground by Qatari, British, French and Jordanian special forces.

In their short-sighted triumphalism over Libya, NATO and Arab monarchist leaders thought they had finally found a model for regime change that worked. Seduced by the blood-drenched mirage in the Libyan desert, they made the cynical decision to double down on what they knew very well would be a longer, more complicated and bloodier proxy war in Syria.

Only a few months after a gleeful Secretary Clinton hailed the sodomy and assassination of Gaddafi, unmarked NATO planes were flying fighters and weapons from Libya to the “Free Syrian Army” training base at Iskenderum in Turkey, where British and French special forces provided more training and the CIA and JSOC infiltrated them into Syria. Residents of Aleppo were shocked to find their city invaded, not by Syrian rebels, but by Islamist fighters from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt. Despite the already brutal repression of the Syrian government, a Qatari-funded YouGov poll in December 2011 found that 55% of Syrians still supported their government, understanding that the alternative could be much worse.

Secretary Clinton and President Sarkozy assembled the Orwellian “Friends of Syria” coalition that undermined Kofi Annan’s 2012 peace plan by committing more funding, arms and support to their proxy forces instead of pressuring them to honor Annan’s April 10th ceasefire and begin negotiations for a political transition.

When Annan finally got all the countries involved to sign on to the Geneva communique on June 30th 2012, providing for a new ceasefire and a political transition, he received assurances that it would quickly be formalized in a new UN Security Council resolution. Instead, Clinton and her allies revived their precondition that President Assad must resign before any transition could begin, the critical precondition they had set aside in Geneva. With no possibility of agreement in the Security Council, Annan resigned in despair.

Almost four years later, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed in an ever more convoluted and dangerous war, now involving the armed forces of 16 countries, each with their own interests and their own relationships with different proxy forces on the ground. In many areas, the U.S. supports and arms both sides. Turkey, a NATO member and major U.S. arms buyer, is attacking the YPG Kurdish forces who have been the U.S.’s most effective ally on the ground against Islamic State. And the sectarian government to whom the U.S. handed over the ruins of Iraq is sendingU.S.-armed militias to fight U.S.-armed rebels in Syria.

Obama and Clinton’s doctrine of covert and proxy war, by which they still tout drone strikes, JSOC death squads, CIA coups and local proxy forces as politically safe “tools” to project U.S. power across the world without the deployment of U.S. “boots on the ground,” has destroyed Libya, Yemen, Syria and Ukraine, and left U.S. foreign policy in an unprecedented crisis.

Hanging over this escalating, out-of-control crisis is the existential danger of war between the U.S. and Russia, who together possess 14,700 nuclear weapons with the destructive power to end life on Earth as we know it. With her demonstrated, deeply-held belief in the superiority of threats, brinksmanship and war over diplomacy and the rule of law, surely the last thing the world needs now is Hillary Clinton playing chicken with the Russians while the fate of life on Earth hangs in the balance.

Based on Senator Bernie Sanders’ record in Congress, his prescient floor speech during the Iraq war debate in 2002 and his campaign‘s position statement on “War and Peace”, he at least understands the most obvious lesson of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, that it is easier to unleash the dogs of war than to call them off once they have tasted blood. Incredibly, this makes him almost unique among U.S. leaders of this generation.

But there are real flaws in Sanders’ position statement. He cites “vital strategic interests” as a justification for war, dodging the thorny problem that international disputes typically involve “vital strategic interests” on both sides, which the UN Charter addresses by requiring them to be resolved peacefully without the threat or use of force. And instead of pointing out that Clinton’s brinksmanship with Iran risked a second war in 10 years over non-existent WMDs, he repeats the canard that Iran was “developing nuclear weapons” before the signing of the JCPOA in 2015.

Senator Sanders has launched an unprecedented campaign to challenge the way powerful vested interests have corrupted our elections, our political system and our economy. But the same interests have also corrupted our foreign policy, squandering our national wealth on weapons and war, killing millions of people and plunging country after country into war, ruin and chaos. To succeed, the Sanders “revolution” must be ready to bring the same integrity to our country’s role in the world as it promises to bring to our political and economic system.

This article was first published by Who What Why

Forty-eight years ago (in 1968), the country was in the midst of another presidential campaign that came at a seminal moment in American history. Five years earlier, John F. Kennedy had been murdered, and Dr. Martin Luther King had been assassinated in April of 1968. The Vietnam War was escalating. Race riots were becoming a fact of urban life. Racial and generational politics as well as social issues were threatening to tear the country apart.

Then on the night of June 5th, 1968, after John Kennedy’s brother Robert had won the all-important California Primary, America got yet another jolt: the younger Kennedy, too, had been struck down.

Who Killed Bobby book cover and author Shane O’Sullivan Photo credit: Union Square Press / whokilledbobby.netand rfkmustdie.com

Flash forward to 2016.

Last week, his alleged killer, Sirhan Sirhan, was up for his 14th parole hearing. Sitting in the audience was Paul Schrade, one of RFK’s closest confidantes — who was also shot during the attack; Schrade, now 91, is interesting for many reasons, not the least of which is his conclusion that, assuming Sirhan was one of the shooters that night, he was not the only one. Moreover, if Sirhan fired any shots, Schrade is quite certain that the young Palestinian-American, once again being denied parole, could not have killed RFK — because it was a physical impossibility.

Author and filmmaker Shane O’Sullivan has spent 12 years examining how Sirhan might have been “programmed”, and by whom; scrutinizing the failures of the Los Angeles Police Department; bringing forth the sound and ballistic evidence showing 14 separate shots were fired; and publicizing the efforts by RFK friend Schrade to reopen the investigation. In this podcast, he talks to WhoWhatWhy’s Jeff Schectman about where the fact trail points.

Click HERE to Download Mp3

As October ended, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest announced that the U.S. would be sending “less than 50” boots-on-the-ground Special Operations forces into northern Syria in an “advise-and-assist” program for Kurdish rebels and their (essentially nonexistent) Arab allies.  Only days before, in yet another example of twenty-first-century mission creep, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had told Congress that the intensity of U.S. air attacks in Syria would rise “with additional U.S. and coalition aircraft and heavier airstrikes.”  For this, A-10 and F-15 aircraft were to be deployed to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

It was the sort of military promise from Washington — more of the same — that has grown increasingly familiar in these years and could be summed up by adapting that old DuPont ad line, “better living through chemistry”: a better world through bombing.  Unfortunately for such plans, the verdict has long been in: air power as a decisive factor in American war in this century has proven a dismal failure.  Even in skies that, with the rarest of exceptions, offer no dangers whatsoever (other than mechanical failure) to fighter jets, bombers, and drones, even in situations in which munitions can be delivered to any chosen spot with alacrity and without opposition by aircraft freely patrolling the skies overhead, air power has proven a weapon from hell in every sense of the world.  Complete “air superiority” has been a significant factor, as in Libya, in the creation of a string of failed states (and so breeding grounds for terror outfits) across the Greater Middle East. In its post-modern “manhunting” form, grimly named Predator and Reaper drones have managed to kill thousands of leaders, lieutenants, sub-lieutenants, and rank-and-file militants in various terrorist organizations, as well as significant numbers of civilians, including children.  Recently leaked documents on Washington’s drone assassination campaigns indicate that, in at least one period in Afghanistan, only 10% of those killed were actually targeted for death.  And yet the president’s drone assassination campaign in several countries (based in part on a White House “kill list” and “terror Tuesday” meetings to decide whom to target) seems only to have helped foster the exponential growth of terror outfits across the Greater Middle East and Africa.

In these years, air power has, in fact, been closely associated with one fiasco or policy disappointment after another.  To take a single recent example: President Obama began his “no boots on the ground” air campaign against the Islamic State (IS) and its “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq in September 2014.  Now, more than a year and thousands of air strikes later, though large numbers of IS militants and some of its leaders have died, the movement continues to more than hold its own in Iraq, while expanding into new areas of Syria.  There is no evidence that Washington’s air war in support of well… it’s a little unclear who — now being emulated by the Russians in support of Syria’s brutal autocrat Bashar al-Assad — has met any of its goals.

And yet from all of this, the only conclusion repeatedly drawn in Washington is to do it again.  That air power in its various forms has added up to both a war of terror (that is, on civilian populations below) and a war for terror, that it has become a recruitment poster for terror outfits evidently matters not at all.  In Washington, no conclusions are seemingly drawn from the actual record of these last 14 years, nor from a far longer historical record of air power disappointments, of repeated times in which much was destroyed and countless people, especially civilians, killed to no decisive effect whatsoever.  As Greg Grandin points out today, that phenomenon stretches back at least to Vietnam (if not Korea).  In his second piece at TomDispatch on the eternal Henry Kissinger (92 and still writing op-eds for the Wall Street Journal), based on his remarkable new book, Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman, Grandin reminds us of what a pioneer in the horrors of modernity the good “doctor” really was. Tom

Kissinger, the Bombardier: How Diplomacy by Air Power Became an All-American Tradition,

By Greg Grandin

In April 2014, ESPN published a photograph of an unlikely duo: Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger at the Yankees-Red Sox season opener. In fleece jackets on a crisp spring day, they were visibly enjoying each other’s company, looking for all the world like a twenty-first-century geopolitical version of Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The subtext of their banter, however, wasn’t about sex, but death.

As a journalist, Power had made her name as a defender of human rights, winning a Pulitzer Prize for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Having served on the National Security Council before moving on to the U.N., she was considered an influential “liberal hawk” of the Obama era. She was also a leading light among a set of policymakers and intellectuals who believe that American diplomacy should be driven not just by national security and economic concerns but by humanitarian ideals, especially the advancement of democracy and the defense of human rights.

The United States, Power long held, has a responsibility to protect the world’s most vulnerable people. In 2011 she played a crucial role in convincing President Obama to send in American air power to prevent troops loyal to Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi from massacring civilians.  That campaign led to his death, the violent overthrow of his regime, and in the end, a failed state and growing stronghold for ISIS and other terror groups. In contrast, Kissinger is identified with a school of “political realism,” which holds that American power should service American interests, even if that means sacrificing the human rights of others.

According to ESPN, Power teasingly asked Kissinger if his allegiance to the Yankees was “in keeping with a realist’s perspective on the world.” Power, an avid Red Sox fan, had only recently failed to convince the United Nations to endorse a U.S. bombing campaign in Syria, so Kissinger couldn’t resist responding with a gibe of his own. “You might,” he said, “end up doing more realistic things.” It was his way of suggesting that she drop the Red Sox for the Yankees. “The human rights advocate,” Power retorted, referring to herself in the third person, “falls in love with the Red Sox, the downtrodden, the people who can’t win the World Series.”

“Now,” replied Kissinger, “we are the downtrodden” — a reference to the Yankees’ poor performance the previous season. During his time in office, Kissinger had been involved in three of the genocides Power mentions in her book: Pol Pot’s “killing fields” in Cambodia, which would never have occurred had he not infamously ordered an illegal four-and-a-half-year bombing campaign in that country; Indonesia’s massacre in East Timor; and Pakistan’s in Bangladesh, both of which he expedited.

You might think that mutual knowledge of his policies under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and the horrors that arose from them would have cast a pall over their conversation, but their banter was lively. “If a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan can head into the heart of darkness for the first game of the season,” Power commented, “all things are possible.”

All things except, it seems, extricating the country from its endless wars.

Only recently, Barack Obama announced that U.S. troops wouldn’t be leaving Afghanistan any time soon and also made a deeper commitment to fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including deploying the first U.S. ground personnel into that country. Indeed, a new book by New York Times reporter Charlie Savage, Power Wars, suggests that there has been little substantive difference between George W. Bush’s administration and Obama’s when it comes to national security policies or the legal justifications used to pursue regime change in the Greater Middle East.

Henry Kissinger is, of course, not singularly responsible for the evolution of the U.S. national security state into a monstrosity. That state has had many administrators. But his example — especially his steadfast support for bombing as an instrument of “diplomacy” and his militarization of the Persian Gulf — has coursed through the decades, shedding a spectral light on the road that has brought us to a state of eternal war.

From Cambodia…

Within days of Richard Nixon’s inauguration in January 1969, national security adviser Kissinger asked the Pentagon to lay out his bombing options in Indochina. The previous president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had suspended his own bombing campaign against North Vietnam in hopes of negotiating a broader ceasefire. Kissinger and Nixon were eager to re-launch it, a tough task given domestic political support for the bombing halt.

The next best option: begin bombing across the border in Cambodia to destroy enemy supply lines, depots, and bases supposedly located there.  Nixon and Kissinger also believed that such an onslaught might force Hanoi to make concessions at the negotiating table. On February 24th, Kissinger and his military aide, Colonel Alexander Haig, met with Air Force Colonel Ray Sitton, an expert on B-52 bombers, to begin the planning of Menu, the grim culinary codename for the bombing campaign to come.

Given that Nixon had been elected on a promise to end the war in Vietnam, Kissinger believed that it wasn’t enough to place Menu in the category of “top secret.” Absolute and total secrecy, especially from Congress, was a necessity. He had no doubt that Congress, crucial to the appropriation of funds needed to conduct specific military missions, would never approve a bombing campaign against a neutral country with which the United States wasn’t at war.

Instead, Kissinger, Haig, and Sitton came up with an ingenious deception. Based on recommendations from General Creighton Abrams, commander of military operations in Vietnam, Sitton would lay out the Cambodian targets to be struck, then run them by Kissinger and Haig for approval. Next, he would backchannel their coordinates to Saigon and a courier would deliver them to radar stations where the officer in charge would, at the last minute, switch B-52 bombing runs over South Vietnam to the agreed-upon Cambodian targets.

Later, that officer would burn any relevant maps, computer printouts, radar reports, or messages that might reveal the actual target. “A whole special furnace” was set up to dispose of the records, Abrams would later testify before Congress. “We burned probably 12 hours a day.” False “post-strike” paperwork would then be written up indicating that the sorties had been flown over South Vietnam as planned.

Kissinger was very hands-on. “Strike here in this area,” Sitton recalled Kissinger telling him, “or strike here in that area.” The bombing galvanized the national security adviser. The first raid occurred on March 18, 1969. “K really excited,” Bob Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, wrote in his diary. “He came beaming in [to the Oval Office] with the report.”

In fact, he would supervise every aspect of the bombing. As journalist Seymour Hersh later wrote, “When the military men presented a proposed bombing list, Kissinger would redesign the missions, shifting a dozen planes, perhaps, from one area to another, and altering the timing of the bombing runs… [He] seemed to enjoy playing the bombardier.” (That joy wouldn’t be limited to Cambodia. According to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, when the bombing of North Vietnam finally started up again, Kissinger “expressed enthusiasm at the size of the bomb craters.”) A Pentagon report released in 1973 stated that “Henry A. Kissinger approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids in 1969 and 1970” — the most secretive phase of the bombing — “as well as the methods for keeping them out of the newspapers.”

All told, between 1969 and 1973, the U.S. dropped half-a-million tons of bombs on Cambodia alone, killing at least 100,000 civilians. And don’t forget Laos and both North and South Vietnam. “It’s wave after wave of planes. You see, they can’t see the B-52 and they dropped a million pounds of bombs,” Kissinger told Nixon after the April 1972 bombing of North Vietnam’s port city of Haiphong, as he tried to reassure the president that the strategy was working: “I bet you we will have had more planes over there in one day than Johnson had in a month… Each plane can carry about 10 times the load [a] World War II plane could carry.”

As the months passed, however, the bombing did nothing to force Hanoi to the bargaining table.  It did, on the other hand, help Kissinger in his interoffice rivalries. His sole source of power was Nixon, who was a bombing advocate. So Kissinger embraced his role as First Bombardier to show the tough-guy militarists the president had surrounded himself with that he was the “hawk of hawks.” And yet, in the end, even Nixon came to see that the bombing campaigns were a dead end. “K. We have had 10 years of total control of the air in Laos and V.Nam,” Nixon wrote him over a top-secret report on the efficacy of bombing, “The result = Zilch.” (This was in January 1972, three months before Kissinger assured Nixon that “wave after wave” of bombers would do the trick).

During those four-and a half years when the U.S. military dropped more than 6,000,000 tons of bombs on Southeast Asia, Kissinger revealed himself to be not a supreme political realist, but the planet’s supreme idealist.  He refused to quit when it came to a policy meant to bring about a world he believed he ought to live in, one where he could, by the force of the material power of the U.S. military, bend poor peasant countries like Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to his will — as opposed to the one he did live in, where bomb as he might he couldn’t force Hanoi to submit. As he put it at the time, “I refuse to believe that a little fourth-rate power like North Vietnam does not have a breaking point.”

In fact, that bombing campaign did have one striking effect: it destabilized Cambodia, provoking a 1970 coup that, in turn, provoked a 1970 American invasion, which only broadened the social base of the insurgency growing in the countryside, leading to escalating U.S. bombing runs that spread to nearly the whole country, devastating it and creating the conditions for the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

…to the First Gulf War 

Having either condoned, authorized, or planned so many invasions — Indonesia’s in East Timor, Pakistan’s in Bangladesh, the U.S.’s in Cambodia, South Vietnam’s in Laos, and South Africa’s in Angola — Henry Kissinger took the only logical stance in early August 1990, when Saddam Hussein sent the Iraqi military into Kuwait: he condemned the act. In office, he had worked to pump up Baghdad’s regional ambitions. As a private consultant and pundit, he had promoted the idea that Saddam’s Iraq could serve as a disposable counterweight to revolutionary Iran. Now, he knew just what needed to be done: the annexation of Kuwait had to be reversed.

President George H.W. Bush soon launched Operation Desert Shield, sending an enormous contingent of troops to Saudi Arabia. But once there, what exactly were they to do? Contain Iraq? Attack and liberate Kuwait? Drive on to Baghdad and depose Saddam? There was no clear consensus among foreign policy advisers or analysts. Prominent conservatives, who had made their names fighting the Cold War, offered conflicting advice. Former ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, for instance, opposed any action against Iraq. She didn’t think that Washington had a “distinctive interest in the Gulf” now that the Soviet Union was gone. Other conservatives pointed out that, with the Cold War over, it mattered little whether Iraqi Baathists or local sheiks pumped Kuwait’s oil as long as it made it out of the ground.

Kissinger took the point position in countering those he called America’s “new isolationists.” What Bush did next in Kuwait, he announced in the first sentence of a widely published syndicated column, would make or break his administration. Anything short of the liberation of Kuwait would turn Bush’s “show of force” in Saudi Arabia into a “debacle.”

Baiting fellow conservatives reluctant to launch a crusade in the Gulf, he insisted, in Cold War-ish terms that couldn’t fail to bite, that their advice was nothing short of “abdication.” There were, he insisted, “consequences” to one’s “failure to resist.” He may, in fact, have been the first person to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler. In opinion pieces, TV appearances, and testimony before Congress, Kissinger forcefully argued for intervention, including the “surgical and progressive destruction of Iraq’s military assets” and the removal of the Iraqi leader from power. “America,” he insisted, “has crossed its Rubicon” and there was no turning back.

He was once again a man of the moment.  But how expectations had shifted since 1970! When President Bush launched his bombers on January 17, 1991, it was in the full glare of the public eye, recorded for all to see. There was no veil of secrecy and no secret furnaces, burned documents, or counterfeited flight reports. After a four-month-long on-air debate among politicians and pundits, “smart bombs” lit up the sky over Baghdad and Kuwait City as the TV cameras rolled. Featured were new night-vision equipment, real-time satellite communications, and former U.S. commanders ready to narrate the war in the style of football announcers right down to instant replays. “In sports-page language,” said CBS News anchor Dan Rather on the first night of the attack, “this… it’s not a sport. It’s war. But so far, it’s a blowout.”

And Kissinger himself was everywhere — ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, on the radio, in the papers — offering his opinion. “I think it’s gone well,” he said to Dan Rather that very night.

It would be a techno-display of such apparent omnipotence that President Bush got the kind of mass approval Kissinger and Nixon never dreamed possible. With instant replay came instant gratification, confirmation that the president had the public’s backing. On January 18th, only a day into the assault, CBS announced that a new poll “indicates extremely strong support for Mr. Bush’s Gulf offensive.”

“By God,” Bush said in triumph, “we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

Saddam Hussein’s troops were easily driven out of Kuwait and, momentarily, it looked like the outcome would vindicate the logic behind Kissinger’s and Nixon’s covert Cambodian air campaign: that the US should be free to use whatever military force it needed to compel the political outcome it sought. It seemed as if the world Kissinger had long believed he ought to live in was finally coming into being.

…toward 9/11

Saddam Hussein, however, remained in power in Baghdad, creating a problem of enormous proportions for Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton. Increasingly onerous sanctions, punctuated by occasional cruise missile attacks on Baghdad, only added to the crisis. Children were starving; civilians were being killed by U.S. missiles; and the Baathist regime refused to budge.

Kissinger watched all of this with a kind of detached amusement. In a way, Clinton was following his lead: he was bombing a country with which we weren’t at war and without congressional approval in part to placate the militarist right. In 1998, at a conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of the accords that ended the Vietnam War, Kissinger expressed his opinion on Iraq. The real “problem,” he said, is will. You need to be willing to “break the back” of somebody you refuse to negotiate with, just as he and Nixon had done in Southeast Asia. “Whether we got it right or not,” Kissinger added, “is really secondary.”

That should count as a remarkable statement in the annals of “political realism.”

Not surprisingly then, in the wake of 9/11, Kissinger was an early supporter of a bold military response. On August 9, 2002, for instance, he endorsed a policy of regime change in Iraq in his syndicated column, acknowledging it as “revolutionary.” “The notion of justified pre-emption,” he wrote, “runs counter to modern international law,” but was nonetheless necessary because of the novelty of the “terrorist threat,” which “transcends the nation-state.”

There was, however, “another, generally unstated, reason for bringing matters to a head with Iraq”: to “demonstrate that a terrorist challenge or a systemic attack on the international order also produces catastrophic consequences for the perpetrators, as well as their supporters.” To be — in true Kissingerian fashion — in the good graces of the most militaristic members of an American administration, the ultimate political “realist” was, in other words, perfectly willing to ignore that the secular Baathists of Baghdad were the enemies of Islamic jihadists, and that Iraq had neither perpetrated 9/11 nor supported the perpetrators of 9/11. After all, being “right or not is really secondary” to the main issue: being willing to do something decisive, especially use air power to “break the back” of… well, whomever.

Less than three weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney, laying out his case for an invasion of Iraq before the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars, quoted directly from Kissinger’s column. “As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated,” said Cheney, there is “an imperative for pre-emptive action.”

In 2005, after the revelations about the cooking of intelligence and the manipulation of the press to neutralize opposition to the invasion of Iraq, after Fallujah and Abu Ghraib, after it became clear that the real beneficiary of the occupation would be revolutionary Iran, Michael Gerson, George W. Bush’s speechwriter, paid a visit to Kissinger in New York. Public support for the war was by then plummeting and Bush’s justifications for waging it expanding. America’s “responsibility,” he had announced earlier that year in his second inaugural address, was to “rid the world of evil.”

Gerson, who had helped write that speech, asked Kissinger what he thought of it. “At first I was appalled,” Kissinger said, but then he came to appreciate it for instrumental reasons. “On reflection,” as Bob Woodward recounted in his book State of Denial, he “now believed the speech served a purpose and was a very smart move, setting the war on terror and overall U.S. foreign policy in the context of American values. That would help sustain a long campaign.”

At that meeting, Kissinger gave Gerson a copy of an infamous memo he had written Nixon in 1969 and asked him to pass it along to Bush. “Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public,” he had warned, “the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.” Don’t get caught in that trap, Kissinger told Gerson, for once withdrawals start, it will become “harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain, not to speak of their mothers.”

Kissinger then reminisced about Vietnam, reminding Gerson that incentives offered through negotiations must be backed up by credible threats of an unrestrained nature. As an example, he brought up one of the many “major” ultimatums he had given the North Vietnamese, warning of “dire consequences” if they didn’t offer the concessions needed for the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam “with honor.” They didn’t.

“I didn’t have enough power,” was how Kissinger summarized his experience more than three decades later.

Will the Circle Be Unbroken?

When it comes to American militarism, conventional wisdom puts the idealist Samantha Power and the realist Kissinger at opposite ends of a spectrum. Conventional wisdom is wrong, as Kissinger himself has pointed out. Last year, while promoting his book World Order, he responded to questions about his controversial policies by pointing to Obama. There was, he said, no difference between what he did with B-52s in Cambodia and what the president was doing with drones in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. When asked about his role in overthrowing Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile in 1973, he insisted that his actions had been retrospectively justified by what Obama and Power did in Libya and wanted to do in Syria.

Kissinger’s defense was, of course, partly fatuous, especially his absurd assertion that fewer civilians had died from the half-million tons of bombs he had dropped on Cambodia than from the Hellfire missiles of Obama’s drones. (Credible estimates put civilian fatalities in Cambodia at more than 100,000; drones are blamed for about 1,000 civilian deaths.) He was right, however, in his assertion that many of the political arguments he made in the late 1960s to justify his illegal and covert wars in Cambodia and Laos, considered at the time way beyond mainstream thinking, are now an unquestioned, very public part of American policymaking. This was especially true of the idea that the U.S. has the right to violate the sovereignty of a neutral country to destroy enemy “sanctuaries.” “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” Barack Obama has said, offering Kissinger his retroactive absolution.

Here, then, is a perfect expression of American militarism’s unbroken circle. Kissinger invokes today’s endless, open-ended wars to justify his diplomacy by air power in Cambodia and elsewhere nearly half a century ago. But what he did then created the conditions for today’s endless wars, both those started by Bush’s neocons and those waged by Obama’s war-fighting liberals like Samantha Power. So it goes in Washington.

Greg Grandin, a TomDispatch regular, teaches history at New York University. He is the author of Fordlandia, The Empire of Necessity, which won the Bancroft Prize in American history, and, most recently, Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman.

• To win the cold war President Ronald Reagan formed a secret ‘deception committee’ for a disinformation campaign against the USSR

• On several occasions ‘disinformation’ put the world on the brink of nuclear war

• The ‘Soviet’ U-boat scare that shook Sweden in the 80s was caused by US and UK subs that penetrated Swedish territorial waters disguised as Russian ones

• Swedish military were fully aware of these operations but did not report to Prime Minister, Olof Palme

• The number of Swedes believing in a Soviet threat increased fourfold

• ‘Dove’ Palme had no choice but to take anti-Soviet stance

• He was assassinated the day before his trip to meet Gorbachev whom he saw as a like minded person

The 52 minutes documentary “Deception: The Methods of Reagan” by German director Dirk Pohlmann  premiered last May on ‘ARTE’ the French/German highbrow channel. Broadcast late at night and early in the morning, it generated no reaction.

It has not been shown in Sweden, although it throws light on two of the most dramatic episodes in modern Swedish history – the Soviet U-boat scare of the 1980s that was suddenly repeated in 2014, and the assassination of the Swedish premier Olof Palme in 1986. This film is not a Hollywood thriller, but a sequence of stories told by people who have faces, names, titles and ranks.

Several months after this documentary aired, we are hearing that Russia plans to invade the Baltic states,  that in March 2013:

“Russia’s air force practiced a nuclear strike against Sweden, according to a report by NATO’s secretary general.”

The US and NATO increase defense spending and start a massive build-up on Russian borders…

The Deception Committee

According to the documentary, after a period of détente in the seventies, the ‘hawk’ Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, determined to win the cold war. The arms race gave the US military superiority and exhausted the Soviet Union. It was supplemented by a major disinformation campaign and a war of nerves aimed at sapping the will of the Soviet leadership.

To achieve this, an informal group, known as  the ‘deception committee’ was formed. It answered  directly to President Reagan and was headed by the director of the CIA ,William Casey. Military and intelligence  officers were responsible for operational activities, deflecting responsibility from the White House in case of disclosure.

The scale of operations was impressive. Among the plots analyzed in detail in the film, the US ramped up naval activity near the Kola Peninsula, which hosts Russia’s main nuclear submarine base. Military exercises were supplemented with  disinformation considerably overstating the scale of maneuvers, leading the Kremlin to believe the US was planning a nuclear strike.

US Secretary of the Navy of the time, John Leman, tells the filmmakers :

“We knew that any mistake could provoke an unintended war”.

Soviet strategic bombers were ready to counterattack in 1983 during ‘the Able Archer’ maneuvers. Only a miracle  saved the world from nuclear war.

‘Soviet’ U-boats were NATO’s

The Swedish episode (see viedo) of “Deception: Methods of Reagan” begins on 27 October 1981 when the Soviet diesel-electric Whiskey-class submarine C-363  hit an underwater rock in Swedish territorial waters. The Soviet military said the submarine lost its way, the Swedes said the Russians were conducting reconnaissance. The incident made a lot of noise but was ultimately settled through diplomatic channels.

A year later,  the social-democrat Olof Palme, who coined the  notion ‘common security’, challenging Reagan’s cold war strategy, became the Swedish Prime Minister. Two weeks later, a periscope was detected in Swedish territorial waters…

The documentary shows the unidentified object thought to be a submarine being chased. Military helicopters and warships dropped depth bombs and laid antisubmarine mines for the world’s cameras. No submarine was destroyed and nothing was found.

During Palme’s tenure, there were more than a hundred antisubmarine alerts: the media reported stories of people witnessing Soviet frogmen manipulating something near a Swedish naval base and published undersea tracks left by the mysterious submarines.

Every time, the USSR was blamed, and although it denied everything, no one believed it. From 1981 to 1983, the number of Swedes who perceived a Soviet threat increased from 27% to 83%.

Palme the peacemaker was forced to make harsh anti-Soviet statements instead of promoting his ‘common security’ concept. My father, Boris Pankin who was Soviet ambassador to Sweden in those days, said this caused Palme an almost physical suffering, but he had no choice.

Many years later it turned out there were submarines in Swedish waters, but they were American and British! They carried out maneuvers in Swedish territorial waters disguised as Soviet vessels. The Swedish military authorities were aware of this, but didn’t tell the head of government. Former US Defense Minister Caspar Weinberger and his counterpart in the Royal Navy said they were careful not to hit anything.

The point was that officially neutral and non-aligned Sweden was actually a US military ally, these maneuvers carried out with the consent of the Swedish military. There was supposed to be an ‘unsinkable aircraft-carrier’ near the Soviet border, a scheme the election of Palme disrupted, earning him the enduring hatred of American politicians, the Swedish military and conservative elites. He was a ‘fifth column’, ‘a public enemy’ and they were ready to use ‘whatever it takes’, according to Ola Tunander, professor at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo .

On 28th February 1986 Olof Palme was shot in the center of Stockholm. The murder has never been solved.

“This couldn’t have been done by a lone wolf. It was a political contract killing”, Mikhail Gorbachev tells the filmmakers.

Palme was killed the day before his visit to Moscow, where he was to meet with Gorbachev, his ‘common security’ associate.

The world was taken for a ride

 … The head of the Swedish Government Commission on the Submarine Incident Investigation describes sabotage carried out by his own military:

“Sweden was taken for a ride. The Swedish parliament and Swedish government were taken for a ride as well as the Swedish media. What kind of world are we living in?”

These questions make this documentary highly topical today. Seeing it, you realize that it’s easier to understand  Europe’s post cold-war history in terms of conspiracy theories rather than as  it is currently presented by the ‘free’ western press.   And you realize why there are no new Olof Palmes on the European political scene today.

Five years after the NATO war in Libya, a new war is being prepared against the North African country behind the backs of the world population. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, East Ukraine and Syria, Libya will once again become the arena for war and destruction if the Western powers get their way.

In the past week, a new war in Libya has come dangerously closer. Last Sunday, a proposal for a new “national unity government” in Libya was presented in the Moroccan seaside resort Skhirat under the watchful eye of U.N. representatives.

The main task of the new U.N. puppet government will be to make an official appeal to the so-called “international community” and allow NATO to carry out a new military intervention in Libya under the pretext of a struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS). While negotiations were underway in Skhirat, British Royal Air Force military jets were already flying over the Libyan coast.

On Sunday evening, Fathi al-Majbari, head of the Libyan presidential commission and designated Libyan prime minister, presented the list of members of a new government in Tripoli with thirteen ministers and five state secretaries. He plans to present his agreement to the parliament in Tobruk.

The latest proposal has nothing to do with any kind of “will of the people.” Rather, it came about as a result of an ultimatum by the U.N. Although all nine members of the presidential council were handpicked by U.N. experts, two of them protested and refused to put their signatures on the proposal.

For more than a year, the imperialist powers, including the U.S., Germany, England, France and especially Italy have been working intensely on a new, so-called “robust mandate” for Libya. Such a “robust U.N. mandate” would, according to the U.N. charter, allow the international “air, sea or land armed forces” to carry out measures that are “required for the protection or restoration of world peace and international security.”

In reality, however, the aims of the U.N. in Libya have nothing to do with either the “restoration of world peace,” or the “war on terror,” but rather control of the country’s resources, above all oil and natural gas, as well as strategically important access to the entire African continent.

The NATO powers already reduced the country to rubble five years ago, killing approximately 30,000 people. Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi was brutally murdered. Before his assassination, Western intelligence agencies had already carried out a covert war against the Libyan government and systematically armed Islamist groups. This prepared the way for the current chaotic situation in Libya as well as the development of ISIS in North Africa. The resulting chaos is now being used as a pretext for a renewed military intervention in Libya.

Today, at least three governments and six different militias are struggling for power in Libya. The national congress in Tripoli replaced the so-called National Transitional Council (NTC) in the summer of 2012. Two years later, Islamists built the so-called government of national salvation in competition with the internationally recognized House of Representatives that had fled to Tobruk. In 2014, ISIS began to fight ever more fiercely for control of oil resources and developed its presence along the strategically important Mediterranean coast.

Since then, the U.N. has made a desperate effort to bring together the two competing governments in Tripoli and Tobruk and enforce support for a “unity government” that would sanction a further Western military intervention. This would give the Western powers a free hand to “protect” the oil refineries and the ports from the access of ISIS and to place them under their direct control.

“The last thing in the world you want,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Rome at the beginning of February, “is a false caliphate with access to billions of dollars of oil revenue.”

Libya is the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves in Africa. At the moment, the imperialist powers are collaborating in opposing ISIS, but at the same time there is a struggle behind the scenes over which country and which large energy corporations will have the final say and receive access to the desired resources.

At the end of January, the Pentagon made it known that it was planning a new war in Libya. General Joseph Dunford Jr., head of the U.S. Marine Corps made it clear that U.S. President Barack Obama himself approved a new bombing campaign. Dunford declared that a “decisive military action against ISIL [ISIS]” is being planned and will take place “in conjunction with the political process” in Libya. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force,” he added.

Next to the United States, Italy is playing a leading role in plans for a new campaign against Libya. Italy has a long and bloody colonial history in the regions of Cyrenaika and Tripolitania, which make up a large part of Libya today.

Italy has participated in the exploitation of Libyan natural resources since the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini with the energy corporation ENI (formerly Agip). It also played an active role in the NATO bombardment five years ago. Italian marines have been preparing for months to intervene militarily on the Libyan coast and to secure the offshore oil refineries and transfer ports.

A full year ago, at the beginning of February 2015, Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti publicly declared: “Italy is ready to lead a coalition of regional countries in Europe and North Africa in Libya in order to halt the advance of the kalifates, which have already come up to 350 kilometres from our coasts.” She wanted to prepare five thousand Italian soldiers for this purpose. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has insisted on a U.N. mandate in order to carry out a coordinated military intervention.

In May and June, 2015, the EU Military Committee (EUMC) laid down concrete conditions for the intervention. EU High Representative Federica Mogherini passed a resolution that planned the expansion of the existing EU mission in the Mediterranean and in Libyan territorial waters and on the Libyan mainland. Conditions were specified in which smuggling boats would be destroyed off the Libyan coast and both smugglers and ISIS terrorists could be pursued on Libyan territory. The EU worked out scenarios in this context for the securing of existing institutions such as airports and oil refineries and opened the way for extensive military, police and intelligence agency operations in Libya. All 28 member states agreed to the plan.

The NATO maneuver “Trident Juncture 2015,” which took place last fall with over sixty war ships and 36,000 soldiers in the entire Mediterranean also served to prepare for an intervention in North Africa. All of these scenarios depended up until now on the formation of the impending “national unity government.”

For weeks, the Italian media has been preparing the population for a new invasion of North Africa. “A military intervention in Libya comes ever closer – and this time Italy will take part,” reads the title of an article in VICE News. An article in La Repubblica on January 26, 2016 begins with the words: “at the moment it will not be discussed anymore whether one should invade Libya. The question that poses itself is only when and how. The militaries of the anti-IS coalition are already inspecting the terrain.”

The German elite has long been of the opinion that Germany’s nonparticipation in the NATO war in January 2011 was a mistake and that the geo-strategic and economic interests of Germany must be carried out above all by military means.

In January, Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen made it clear to the Bildnewspaper that the German army would take part in the Libyan intervention this time. In answer to the question whether she would shortly send German soldiers to Libya, she said:

“Libya is opposite the coast of Europe—separated only by the Mediterranean Sea. The most important thing now is to stabilise the country, and ensure that Libya gets a functioning government. The [new government] will rapidly require assistance to impose law and order in this massive state. And at the same time to combat Islamist terrorism, which is also threatening Libya.”

Then she emphasized: “Germany will not be able to escape the responsibility of making a contribution there.”

At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party/SPD) said: “In Germany and Europe we cannot be indifferent about what takes place a few hundred kilometres to the south of Italy, on the other bank of the Mediterranean. And we definitely cannot be indifferent, when IS terror militias gain a firm foothold on the borders of Europe.” It is now “the moment to take responsibility for Libya.”

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey has seized upon a terrorist attack carried out in the capital of Ankara as a pretext for escalating its military campaign against Kurdish-dominated regions in eastern Turkey, northern Syria and Iraq.

At the same time, Ankara is pushing ahead with plans for a ground invasion into Syria. In so doing, NATO member Turkey is deliberately stoking a conflagration in the entire region and risking a military confrontation with Russia, which could rapidly develop into all-out war between the great powers.

On Thursday, the Turkish military command announced that its warplanes had bombed PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) positions in northern Iraq the previous night. Targets were attacked in the Haftanin border region—an area considered to be a stronghold of the PKK militia.

On Friday, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu boasted in a televised speech: “Our armed forces conducted a large-scale operation against the Haftanin camp. … Around 70 members of the separatist terrorist organization … were neutralized.”

In an attack on a military convoy in the Turkish capital of Ankara on Wednesday night, at least 28 people were killed and another 60 injured. All of the dead except one were members of the Turkish military. The attack took place just a few hundred metres from the parliament and Turkish army headquarters. At least six people were killed in another attack on Thursday on a military convoy in the predominantly Kurdish province of Diyarbakir in southeastern Turkey.

Davutoğlu and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan promptly assigned responsibility for the attack to the PKK along with the Syrian Kurdish organizations, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG), and vowed retaliation.

Erdoğan announced that Turkey would “use its legitimate right to defend itself at all times and everywhere. … These actions only serve to increase our determination to retaliate in Turkey and abroad to such attacks on our unity and our future.” The terror tested the patience of Turkey, Erdogan declared, adding menacingly: “If someone fires on Turkey, he will receive a clear answer.”

Davutoğlu threatened: “Yesterday’s attack was directly targeting Turkey and the perpetrator is the YPG and the divisive terrorist organization PKK. All necessary measures will be taken against them.” Davutoğlu vowed that Turkey would continue to shell YPG positions in northern Syria and equated the YPG with the terrorist organizations Al Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), insisting that they could not be a party to Syrian peace talks.

The Turkish prime minister asserted: “This attack has been carried out by the members of the terrorist organization inside Turkey together with an individual YPG member who had crossed from Syria.” Davutoglu then identified the suicide bomber as Salih Neccar, born in 1992 in the Kurdish town of Amudah in northern Syria.

Representatives of the PKK, the YPG and the PYD categorically rejected the allegations launched by Ankara. The PKK commander Cemil Bayik told the PKK-affiliated agency Firat on Thursday: “We do not know who did it. It might, however, have been in retaliation for the massacres in Kurdistan.”

A member of the YPG told reporters, “We have no connection to the man who is named as the assassin.”

The PYD denies any connection to the attacks and has no record of carrying out any actions in Turkey. Its leader, Saleh Muslim, accused the Turkish government of exploiting the attacks to escalate the fighting in northern Syria. “We vehemently deny responsibility,” Muslim said in a telephone interview with Reuters. “Davutoğlu is preparing something else. They have bombarded us for a week, as you know. I can assure you that not a single YPG bullet was fired in the direction of Turkey. They don’t consider Turkey an enemy.”

Whoever has followed events in Syria and the fiercely aggressive response of the Turkish government in recent days can only conclude that the latest terror attacks play into the hands of Davutoğlu and the Turkish government.

For the past week, the Turkish Air Force has bombarded YPG positions in northern Syria and the Turkish army has shelled them with artillery on the Turkish-Syrian border. On Tuesday, the US, which works closely with the YPG in the latter’s offensive against ISIS in Syria, called upon Turkey and the Kurdish militia to end their conflict. Erdoğan replied angrily that such a proposal was “not up for debate” and that Turkish security forces would carry out their fight against the “Kurdish terrorists in Syria” to the bitter end.

He accused the UN and the West of being passive for too long with regard to the fighting in Syria. “Right now I have difficulties understanding the United States. Why do they not call the PYD and YPG terrorists? Why do they say they support the YPG?” On Thursday, Turkey summoned the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Turkey has intensified its rhetoric in the wake of the attacks.

“Those who directly or indirectly support a group hostile to Turkey risk losing their status as a friend. … We cannot tolerate any NATO country, including first and foremost the US, having relations with a terrorist organization that attacks us in the heart of Turkey,”

Davutoğlu declared. He said the Syrian regime was “directly responsible” for the attacks, calling the YPG “a pawn” of Damascus, and insisting that Turkey had the right to take all measures against the Assad regime.

Regarding Russia, which supports the Syrian army in its offensive in northern Syria, Davutoğlu stated that Moscow’s condemnation of the attacks was a “positive sign”, but was not enough. “I warn Russia again against using terrorist organizations against innocent people in Syria and Turkey,” he said.

How can one account for the thoroughly reckless and aggressive stance of the Turkish government?

Recent weeks have seen the collapse of the Western-backed Turkish strategy to forcibly topple the Assad regime through arming and financing so-called moderate Islamist “rebels” in Syria.

An article on the news website al-Monitor states: “On Feb. 3, the Syrian army and its allies dealt a strategic blow to Ankara when they cut the land route between Aleppo and the Bab al-Salameh border crossing with Turkey in the Turkish province of Kilis.”

The road link was important for Erdoğan and Davutoğlu for one reason in particular. Al-Monitor writes:

“The fighters, weapons, munitions and various supplies that flowed via this route to Aleppo allowed the rebels to sustain their military presence in Syria’s most populous city and therefore preserve their political ambitions in the conflict. … Thus, with the fall of Aleppo, Ankara would find itself largely sidelined from the Syrian process.”

Since then, there are increasing indications that the Turkish regime is planning a ground offensive in Syria to rescue its dwindling influence and prevent the emergence of a Kurdish-occupied territory in the north of Syria. Just one day after the Syrian army occupied the Turkish-Syrian route to Aleppo, a spokesman for the Russian Defence Ministry stated that Turkey was “actively preparing for a military invasion in Syria. … We’re detecting more and more signs of Turkish armed forces being engaged in covert preparations for direct military actions in Syria.”

According to reports, the Turkish military has been reticent up until now about a military invasion in Syria. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported recently that the Turkish army would not invade Syria without a resolution from the UN Security Council.

Erdoğan and Davutoğlu have been seeking for some time to change this attitude. An article on al-Monitor, significantly entitled, “Can Erdogan bully Turkey’s armed forces into invading Syria?” reports the Turkish president pushing for an early intervention in Syria. Erdoğan has repeatedly spoken of an “mistake” in 2003 when Turkey refused to march alongside the US into Iraq. Now this “mistake” should not be repeated in Syria.

Already in 2014, Davutoğlu had sought, in his capacity at the time as Turkish defence minister, to provoke an invasion by the Turkish army. A leaked audio recording revealed that he had met with, among others, the head of the Turkish intelligence service MIT, Hakan Fidan, to discuss the possibility of an attack on Turkey from across the Syrian border, or at the grave of Suleiman Shah—a former Turkish enclave inside Syria—serving as a pretext for a full-scale Turkish intervention of Syria. At one point in the conversation, Davutoğlu declared that such an attack “in the current situation should be seen as an opportunity for us”.

Today, the Turkish government is less isolated than in 2014, and enjoys, in particular, greater support from the German government. Just two days ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed in a government statement her support for a no-fly zone in Syria, a central demand of the Erdoğan government and an important prerequisite for a Turkish military invasion in Syria. After the latest terror attacks, she stated that the German government stood “alongside Turkey in the fight against those responsible for such inhuman acts”.

The threat of another major war is becoming more acute on a daily basis. Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev warned at the Munich Security Conference last weekend against the danger of a “new world war” should Western or Arab ground troops invade Syria, adding, “The Americans and our Arab partners must think it through: do they want permanent war?”

The death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia raises a number of questions: What will be Scalia’s legacy? What will happen to the cases pending in the Supreme Court? Will President Obama successfully fill Scalia’s seat on the high court? And how will Scalia’s death affect the 2016 presidential election?

Scalia’s Record on the Court

Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, was a radical right-wing ideologue who called himself an “originalist,” purporting to interpret the US Constitution the way its framers did. He eschewed the idea that the Constitution is a living document that keeps pace with the times. And when voting to allow capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles, he rejected the Supreme Court’s precedent that the Eighth Amendment’s banning of cruel and unusual punishments should be interpreted in light of the “evolving standards of human decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Scalia favored unlimited corporate election spending and he wrote that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms. He opposed reproductive rights, universal health care, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, labor rights, LGBT rights and environmental protection. When questioned about his vote to anoint George W. Bush president in Bush v. Gore, Scalia barked, “Get over it.”

Demonstrators with the “People for the American Way” outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, February 15, 2016. (Doug Mills / The New York Times)

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global Wrongs

During the oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, the affirmative action case pending in the high court, Scalia said he was not “impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer” Black students. He added, “Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many Blacks as possible.”

Many of Scalia’s opinions demonstrate how out of touch he was with ordinary people. Authoring an opinion that created the right of police officers to chase people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, Scalia quoted Proverbs: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” He could not imagine why an innocent young person of color might run when he sees a police officer. And when voting to repeal Miranda rights, Scalia wrote in dissent, “Counsel’s presence is not required to tell the suspect that he need not speak. The interrogators can do that.” As if a police officer would be looking out for the rights of a suspect.

Scalia opposed televising Supreme Court arguments. He once sanctimoniouslydeclared, “Law is a specialized field, fully comprehensible only to the expert.”

The Pending Cases

Several cases to be decided this term have already been argued and the justices have likely voted on them. Opinions are being written. So what will happen now? Even if Obama were to nominate a replacement, he or she would not be confirmed before the current term ends in June.

Cases in which Scalia was assigned to author the majority opinion will probably be set for re-argument next term, which starts in October, hopefully with a new justice. If Scalia was part of a five-justice majority, the court will now be divided 4-4. In cases in which there is no majority, the lower court decision will be “affirmed by an equally divided court.” It will create no binding Supreme Court precedent. Some cases may be decided on narrow procedural grounds in order to avoid equally divided rulings.

Nine of the 13 US Courts of Appeals have a majority of judges who were appointed by Democrats. Thus, many cases in which the court is evenly divided and the lower court decision stands will have liberal outcomes.

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it appeared that public sector unions would lose the right to collect mandatory dues from their members in order to fund collective bargaining. Now it appears the case will result in a tie, leaving the lower court decision in place. That means unions in California and 22 other states would retain their right to collect dues.

Evenwel v. Abbott is a voting rights case. The issue is who should be included when creating voting districts: all who reside in them or only eligible voters? A 4-4 tie would leave the lower court decision in place, which upheld the counting of everybody. People who are not eligible to vote include children, non-citizens, people formerly convicted of felonies and prisoners. With the exception of prisoners, most of these people deemed ineligible to vote live in urban areas that are largely Democratic. As a result, a tie in this case would also have a liberal outcome.

Zubik v. Burwell is a “religious liberty” challenge to a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires some employers to provide birth control to women workers if they don’t sign a form opting out. The case will be argued next month and the lower courts are divided on the issue. A 4-4 tie would result in no decision. Most lower courts across the country have upheld the “contraceptive mandate.”

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is perhaps the biggest threat to Roe v. Wadeto reach the Supreme Court. Texas imposed onerous restrictions on clinics that perform abortions. If there were a 4-4 tie, the lower court decision would stand, resulting in the closure of most clinics in Texas, but not elsewhere. Where a woman lives would determine whether she could obtain an abortion. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy might vote with the liberals to overturn the restrictions placed on women’s health clinics. But even if Kennedy does not vote with the liberals, Scalia’s absence still eliminates a broader risk that previously existed: If Scalia had participated in that decision, the court may well have allowed states to impose restrictions.

Fisher v. University of Texas is an affirmative action case about whether the University of Texas can maintain a race-conscious admissions plan. Since Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had worked on the case when she was solicitor general, only seven justices can vote on it. Kennedy will be the swing vote. If he swings to the right, the university’s affirmative action program will be struck down. Scalia’s death eliminates the possibility of a tie vote.

United States v. Texas is a challenge to Obama’s plan to defer deportation for nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants. A 4-4 split would defeat the program in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the US Justice Department could secure authorizations to go forward with the plan in other circuits. Had Scalia not died, the Supreme Court would probably have imposed broader limitations on Obama’s authority to issue executive orders.

A critical climate change decision is also pending before the high court. Obama has charged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with reducing carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030. In a highly unusual recent move, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order blocking the plan, which was put on hold pending a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The circuit court, which is generally liberal, refused to grant the stay before the high court did so. The DC circuit court will hear the case this summer. The EPA could change the plan slightly and expect the circuit court to allow it to proceed.

What Happens Next?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block anyone Obama might choose to nominate to fill the vacancy on the court. The GOP candidates piled on, reiterating that Obama should refrain from nominating someone to fill Scalia’s seat so the next president could make the nomination. They know that Obama has an opportunity to change the balance of what has been a conservative court for four decades.

But Obama does not have the discretion to refrain from nominating a replacement for Scalia. The US Constitution says that when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” The language is mandatory, not permissive. There is no exception for vacancies that occur near the end of a president’s term.

Interestingly, McConnell wrote in 1970 that “the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee” and that “the president is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological direction of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a presidential platform.”

If no justice is appointed until the next president takes office, there will be a vacancy on the high court for nearly a year, hobbling its ability to carry out its constitutional function.

Republicans disingenuously claim that no Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed in an election year. But Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed in 1988, with nearly unanimous support from Democrats. And in 11 of the 13 times a vacancy occurred during a presidential election year, the Senate acted on the president’s nomination.

For the most part, the Senate has deferred to presidents’ choices for Supreme Court nominees.

Obama will probably nominate a moderate such as Srikanth Srinivasan. In 2013, on a 97-0 vote, the Senate unanimously confirmed Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge, to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He had served as principal deputy solicitor general, arguing some 20 cases on behalf of both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Although he doesn’t have a long paper trail, Srinivasan would probably vote with the liberal justices.

It appears that anyone Obama nominates will not get a vote in the Senate. A president’s nomination is referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. That committee should investigate the nominee’s background and hold a hearing at which the nominee is interrogated. The committee should then vote on the nominee. If the committee votes against the nominee, the nomination will not reach the Senate floor for a decision. If it does reach the Senate floor, a simple majority is required to confirm a nominee. But Republicans can filibuster the nomination, which means 60 votes would be necessary for confirmation. The Senate has 54 Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Although filibusters of Supreme Court nominations are rare, a filibuster seems possible in this case because the political system is unusually polarized. If McConnell stands by his threat to block Obama from carrying out his constitutional duty to nominate someone to the vacant seat, there could be a standoff until the election. The Democrats are likely to take back the Senate, and it would fall to the next president to fill the vacancy. Although Obama can make a recess appointment until the Senate resumes on February 22, he is much more likely to nominate a candidate in due course, and wait for the Republicans to hoist themselves on their own petard, knowing that Independents and moderate Republicans would bridle at such blatant obstructionism.

In a recent piece for the magazine Swarajya (an online and print publication based in India), its national affairs editor, Surajit Dasgupta, makes it clear that he has no time for any criticisms about the use of GMO technology in food and agriculture. He has even less time for those who voice such criticisms.

He argues that ‘activists’ concerns’ would be valid if a GMO were proved to be not substantially equivalent to its non-GM-derived counterpart and if any negative non-intended consequences of genetic engineering were detected. Although failing to cite any relevant texts, Dasgupta then argues that “Report after report will tell you that the concerns above are but an activist’s red herring.”

This is simply incorrect. There is enough evidence to contest the claim that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GMO and that negative consequences of GM have indeed been detected.

GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed (European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Eur Communities. 2001:1–38).

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement signed by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology, and the United Nations food safety body Codex Alimentarius, agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.

Dasgupta’s claim is scientifically inaccurate and deliberately misleading. It is not the intention to regurgitate here what has previously been written about the processes of GM. Some readers might benefit from consulting this to appreciate how GM works and how it is in fact substantially non-equivalent to conventional breeding. They may also consult this, which is (despite Dasgupta’s claims below) supported by peer-reviewed evidence and which demonstrates that GM is not substantially equivalent.

Countering the usual pro-GMO smears and spin with science

By employing all the usual spin of the pro-GMO lobby in an attempt to marginalise critics and criticisms of GM, Dasgupta’s attempt to hide behind some kind of veil of ‘objective journalism’ clearly fails. He calls critics ‘Luddites’, ‘anti-science’ and ‘half-baked intellectuals’ of the internet variety, equipped with misleading information fed by sundry dot org websites run by interest groups in the US – where these activists’ ringmasters are curiously inactive.

Really? Groups opposing GM in the US are highly active. But we’ve heard these type of smears and attacks all before, which are of course merely cheap, lazy PR spin designed by the industry to attack critics and are utterly bogus.

Throughout his piece, Dasgupta tries to convince the reader that the debate on GM is over. In order words: science has won over emotional, ignorant activists. He would do better by keeping an open mind.

For example, hardly some ignorant activist or half-baked intellectual who relies on Google for pseudo-scientific explanations, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK uses genetic engineering for medical applications. However, he has warned against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed:

“GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.”

He adds that:

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields.”

Dr John Fagan is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology.

Fagan says:

“Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.”

He goes on to state:

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.”

These two scientists are not alone in voicing such concerns. Indeed, there are numerous scientists and prestigious scientific institutes that do not give their support to GM technology and this is also reflected by scientific peer-reviewed literature. See this fully-referenced report with references which blows apart the claim that there is some kind of consensus on GM within the ‘scientific community’ (for further insight, see Who says GMOs are safe and who says they are not).

Moreover, both Antoniou and Fagan have backed up their claims in this report with reference to a wide range of studies that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, including The Lancet, Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research and many more.

Despite criticisms of GM having strong scientific underpinnings, Dasgupta insists on calling critics ‘Luddite activists’ who can only resort to slander:

“One wishes a scientist dragged them to the court on a charge of libel. No proof required! Ask them to name a particular scientist whose professional integrity can be questioned, and they can’t.”

Yet he has nothing to say on the smearing and ruining of independent scientists whose credible research highlighted findings that questioned the safety of GM. And he has nothing to say about the unscientific polemics that were used to attack Seralini and his team and the targeting of the very heart of science which occurred in an attempt to discredit Seralini’s work. And indeed there is silence when it comes to the politically and commercially motivated agenda that underpins the push to get GM accepted (which I have outlined here).

The report Seedy Business shows how science can be swayed, bought or biased by agribusiness in many ways, such as suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent US-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

And how very convenient to overlook the systematic subversion of science to promote GM as well as the inadequate, short-term studies and concealed data which is justified on the basis of ‘commercial confidentiality’ (see this) (Dasgupta churns out a similar argument  – citing ‘patent theives’ – in an attempt to justify the secrecy around GM mustard in India).

Readers are urged to check websites such as Lobbywatch, Powerbase and Spinwatch, where they will see links between some prominent GM scientist-lobbyists and big agribusiness companies, the ultra-right group the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Scientific Alliance (described as a front group for corporate interests) and Bivings Group (a public relations company that worked with Monsanto), among others.

And these connections have resulted in well-orchestrated smear campaigns against individuals and groups (see this, this and this), pro -GM propaganda (see this about the sweet potato) and dirty tricks (for example, using fake identities to attacks critcs of GM).

At the same time, those responsible for such things carefully manage the message that they themselves are the persecuted victims of ideologically-driven anti-GM campaigners.

And this is the line Dasgupta takes: the GM project is being held back by ‘Luddites’ and ideologically-driven activists who attacking science, smearing individuals and distorting debate.

Doublespeak and hypocrisy are the order of the day.

Flawed pro-GMO advocacy masquerading as objective journalism

He then roles out a brief list of studies/reports/statements/scientists that he alleges support GM and which have no links to big biotech and are thus beyond reproach. Bear in mind that Dasgupta attacks critics of GM for referring to some kind of university of Google and activist-tainted sites to base their claims on and not peer-reviewed science.

So let us see just who Dasgupta cites to support his claims.

First, he makes use of a personal interview (not a peer-reviewed article) he once conducted. But what is perhaps more relevant is that he cites, the statement (again, not an article appearing in a peer-reviewed journal), Legally mandating GM food labels could mislead and falsely alarm consumers by the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dated 25 October 2012.

However, 12 days before California voted on the ballot initiative Proposition 37, for labeling of genetically engineered food, the board of directors of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science released the above statement that GM engineered crops “pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques” and that mandatory labeling of GMOs could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”

US Right to Know has discovered that when the AAAS board released its statement, its chair was Nina Federoff. She was a member of the scientific advisory board of Evogene for five years, an Israeli biotechnology company, and was a long-time member of the board of directors of the biotechnology firm Sigma-Aldrich. In her role as ‘science and technology advisor’ to the State Department and US Agency for International Development, the Pesticide Action Network called her “literally the US ambassador for GE”. She even endorsed a campaign statement by opponents of Proposition 37, offering that she was “passionately opposed to labeling” of genetically engineered food.

Dasgupta then cites S Key, JK Ma and PM Drake’s 2008 paper, Genetically modified plants and human health, which he claims to be a veritable work on both advantages and challenges in GM crops. He claims this is ‘trustworthy’. He conveniently overlooks the fact that this piece contains a major falsehood and serious factual errors leading to an illogical and invalid conclusion on the safety of GM crops.

Next, he refers to The American Medical Association’s 2012 paper, Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labelling of Bioengineered Foods, which he claims explains what no ‘science-illiterate activist’ can.

According to Food and Water Watch, this report was designed to address GMO labelling, not GMO safety. Supporters of GM like to dwell on a quote pertaining to the lack of documented adverse effects on human health from GMOs.

However, GMO advocates choose to misrepresent the AMA council report’s full statement, which acknowledges the potential for adverse effects and the need for mandatory, pre-market safety assessments. The final, official AMA policy does not include the quote used by the pro-GMO activists, and it actually notes safety issues.

Dasgupta then cites the United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council’s 2004 paper Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects on the basis of its integrity.

The National Academies of Science in the US has cited safety concerns with GMOs for many years, including potential unintended consequences associated with gene manipulation and, according the paper cited above, the potential for genetic engineering techniques to raise “toxicities, allergies, nutrient deficiencies and imbalances,” the negative effects on beneficial, non-target species and the inadequacy of current regulatory safety reviews. Food & Water Watch argues that, at the time, biotech companies like Monsanto and DuPont and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade association, sat on high-level National Research Council boards and their influence may have even weakened the language and conclusions.

Dasgupta also states that ‘erudite columnist’ Anand Ranganathan put all speculative allegations regarding GM crops to rest in a three-part series. But the pieces he refers to appear on a website, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

It seems critics of GM must only cite peer-reviewed science but he can cite any source, no matter how flawed or irrelevant.

But any astute reader would already appreciate this last point. The publication for whom Dasgupta is national affairs editor recently published a piece by Shanthu Shantharam that attacked individuals and organisations and was little more than a collection of unsubstantiated slurs and claims. One need look no further to understand that the piece should never have been published because it did not comply with Swarajya’s own publication guidelines (points 2 and 4 here).

It might appear that standards of ‘objective journalism’ do not apply when it comes to promoting a pro-GM agenda.

Dasgupta then says:

“The rabble rousers better not question the honesty of these scientists and science writers, lest they should be pulled up for defamation. Wild charges levelled on the whole group with no mention of specifics, unfortunately, cannot be stopped.”

Well, what we have above are a few specifics. There are serious deficiencies in the sources Dasgupta’s cites. By using them, he fails to make the point he set out to and seriously undermines his own argument.

More smears, falsehoods and misrepresentations

What we get from thereon is a good deal of inflammatory writing and ‘rabble rousing’. He claims that critics of GM peddle half-truths and scare-mongering about GM in order to serve their own self interests. Dasgupta churns out the usual falsehood of anti-GM activists in wealthy countries keeping people in poor countries hungry by denying them food. Again, it doesn’t take much to demolish this lie and to appreciate that a fraudulent GMO project is being offered as a proxy solution by those with a strident neoliberal ideological agenda for deep-seated social, political and economic factors that are fuelled by neoliberalism and which drive poverty and hunger around the world.

And he doesn’t stop there. Dasgupta draws a comparison between critics of GM and ‘private websites promoting cults’:

“be it a Christian website damning homosexuality, a Muslim website condemning pork, a Hindu website slamming beef, a maker of tinned vegan dishes cursing non-vegetarian food, a trader’s cartel spreading paranoia about FDI in retail or an indirect player in agriculture forbidding genetic modification of crops.”

And in predictable fashion, he then attacks various people, such as Joseph Mercola, Vandana Shiva, Anuradha Mittal (Oakland Institute) and Devinder Sharma.

It’s extremely shoddy stuff.

He takes aim at organic farming and claims organic does not lead to substantially increased income for the farmers, whereas, sowing GM varieties of seeds would themselves lead to rich harvests. Again, both points are erroneous. For example, GM cotton in India has been a disaster for farmers in rain fed areas according to the peer-reviewed paper referred to in this piece, and there is enough evidence to show GM does not lead to ‘rich harvests’ but often human and ecological disaster.

Moreover, organic can lead to increases in farmer incomes and is indeed recommended as a strategy in countries like India for securing a sustainable model of agriculture and food security. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. Dasgupta might like to take note that it was twice peer reviewed and states we must look to smallholder, traditional farming to deliver food security in lower income countries through agro-ecological systems which are sustainable.

There is also this, which refers to peer-reviewed papers and various reports to support the claims made about agroecology, not least that increased productivity with fewer external inputs is but one advantage of the model.

Finally, early on in his piece, Dasgupta attempts to justify the secrecy surrounding GM mustard in India by referring to some high-minded notions of commercial confidentiality (patent protection from theives), despite serious allegations that the entire testing trials are based on regulatory delinquency and unremitting fraud. He forwards the ludicrous argument that openness should only occur and relevant documents released once GM mustard is given the go ahead. How convenient.

And he presents a well-established myth in an attempt to justify the entry of GM mustard into farmers’ fields. He says that by blocking genetically modified mustard developed, they (‘the activists’) “will only help foreigners sell their edible oils to us beyond the present level of 70 per cent of our needs.”

Of course, this too is another deception. GM mustard is being pushed as a Trojan horse solution on the basis it can provide better yields and that it can reduce India’s imports of edible oils. The fact is that the GM trait will add nothing to yields, and trade policies (not poor agricultural productivity) coupled with the impact of foreign agribusiness concerns operating in India, have decimated the edible oils sector within the country.

There are various other points in Dasgupta’s piece that could be addressed. But the reader will get the point. It is a cheap piece of advocacy based on falsehoods, slurs and misrepresentations born from the frustration of the pro-GMO lobby’s failure to force GM food crops into India.

The US economy died when middle class jobs were offshored and when the financial system was deregulated.

Jobs offshoring benefitted Wall Street, corporate executives, and shareholders, because lower labor and compliance costs resulted in higher profits. These profits flowed through to shareholders in the form of capital gains and to executives in the form of “performance bonuses.” Wall Street benefitted from the bull market generated by higher profits.

However, jobs offshoring also offshored US GDP and consumer purchasing power. Despite promises of a “New Economy” and better jobs, the replacement jobs have been increasingly part-time, lowly-paid jobs in domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses and bartenders.

Image: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The offshoring of US manufacturing and professional service jobs to Asia stopped the growth of consumer demand in the US, decimated the middle class, and left insufficient employment for college graduates to be able to service their student loans. The ladders of upward mobility that had made the United States an “opportunity society” were taken down in the interest of higher short-term profits.

Without growth in consumer incomes to drive the economy, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted the growth in consumer debt to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income. Under the Greenspan regime, Americans’ stagnant and declining incomes were augmented with the ability to spend on credit. One source of this credit was the rise in housing prices that the Federal Reserves low inerest rate policy made possible. Consumers could refinance their now higher-valued home at lower interest rates and take out the “equity” and spend it.

The debt expansion, tied heavily to housing mortgages, came to a halt when the fraud perpetrated by a deregulated financial system crashed the real estate and stock markets. The bailout of the guilty imposed further costs on the very people that the guilty had victimized.

Under Fed chairman Bernanke the economy was kept going with Quantitative Easing, a massive increase in the money supply in order to bail out the “banks too big to fail.” Liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve found its way into stock and bond prices and made those invested in these financial instruments richer. Corporate executives helped to boost the stock market by using the companies’ profits and by taking out loans in order to buy back the companies’ stocks, thus further expanding debt.

Those few benefitting from inflated financial asset prices produced by Quantitative Easing and buy-backs are a much smaller percentage of the population than was affected by the Greenspan consumer credit expansion. A relatively few rich people are an insufficient number to drive the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy was designed to support the balance sheets of the mega-banks and denied Americans interest income on their savings. This policy decreased the incomes of retirees and forced the elderly to reduce their consumption and/or draw down their savings more rapidly, leaving no safety net for heirs.

Using the smoke and mirrors of under-reported inflation and unemployment, the US government kept alive the appearance of economic recovery. Foreigners fooled by the deception continue to support the US dollar by holding US financial instruments.

The official inflation measures were “reformed” during the Clinton era in order to dramatically understate inflation. The measures do this in two ways. One way is to discard from the weighted basket of goods that comprises the inflation index those goods whose price rises. In their place, inferior lower-priced goods are substituted.

For example, if the price of New York strip steak rises, round steak is substituted in its place. The former official inflation index measured the cost of a constant standard of living. The “reformed” index measures the cost of a falling standard of living.

The other way the “reformed” measure of inflation understates the cost of living is to discard price rises as “quality improvements.” It is true that quality improvements can result in higher prices. However, it is still a price rise for the consumer as the former product is no longer available. Moreover, not all price rises are quality improvements; yet many prices rises that are not can be misinterpreted as “quality improvements.”

These two “reforms” resulted in no reported inflation and a halt to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. The fall in Social Security real incomes also negatively impacted aggregate consumer demand.

The rigged understatement of inflation deceived people into believing that the US economy was in recovery. The lower the measure of inflation, the higher is real GDP when nominal GDP is deflated by the inflation measure. By understating inflation, the US government has overstated GDP growth.

What I have written is easily ascertained and proven; yet the financial press does not question the propaganda that sustains the psychology that the US economy is sound. This carefully cultivated psychology keeps the rest of the world invested in dollars, thus sustaining the House of Cards.

John Maynard Keynes understood that the Great Depression was the product of an insufficiency of consumer demand to take off the shelves the goods produced by industry. The post-WW II macroeconomic policy focused on maintaining the adequacy of aggregate demand in order to avoid high unemployment. The supply-side policy of President Reagan successfully corrected a defect in Keynesian macroeconomic policy and kept the US economy functioning without the “stagflation” from worsening “Philips Curve” trade-offs between inflation and employent. In the 21st century, jobs offshoring has depleted consumer demand’s ability to maintain US full employment.

The unemployment measure that the presstitute press reports is meaningless as it counts no discouraged workers, and discouraged workers are a huge part of American unemployment. The reported unemployment rate is about 5%, which is the U-3 measure that does not count as unemployed workers who are too discouraged to continue searching for jobs.

The US government has a second official unemployment measure, U-6, that counts workers discouraged for less than one-year. This official rate of unemployment is 10%.

When long term (more than one year) discouraged workers are included in the measure of unemployment, as once was done, the US unemployment rate is 23%. (See John Williams, shadowstats.com)

Fiscal and monetary stimulus can pull the unemployed back to work if jobs for them still exist domestically. But if the jobs have been sent offshore, monetary and fiscal policy cannot work.

What jobs offshoring does is to give away US GDP to the countries to which US corporations move the jobs. In other words, with the jobs go American careers, consumer purchasing power and the tax base of state, local, and federal governments. There are only a few American winners, and they are the shareholders of the companies that offshored the jobs and the executives of the companies who receive multi-million dollar “performance bonuses” for raising profits by lowering labor costs. And, of course, the economists, who get grants, speaking engagements, and corporate board memberships for shilling for the offshoring policy that worsens the distribution of income and wealth. An economy run for a few only benefits the few, and the few, no matter how large their incomes, cannot consume enough to keep the economy growing.

In the 21st century US economic policy has destroyed the ability of real aggregate demand in the US to increase. Economists will deny this, because they are shills for globalism and jobs offshoring. They misrepresent jobs offshoring as free trade and, as in their ideology free trade benefits everyone, claim that America is benefitting from jobs offshoring. Yet, they cannot show any evidence whatsoever of these alleged benefits. (See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West.)

As an economist, it is a mystery to me how any economist can think that a population that does not produce the larger part of the goods that it consumes can afford to purchase the goods that it consumes. Where does the income come from to pay for imports when imports are swollen by the products of offshored production?

We were told that the income would come from better-paid replacement jobs provided by the “New Economy,” but neither the payroll jobs reports nor the US Labor Departments’s projections of future jobs show any sign of this mythical “New Economy.”

There is no “New Economy.” The “New Economy” is like the neoconservatives promise that the Iraq war would be a six-week “cake walk” paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not a $3 trillion dollar expense to American taxpayers (according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes) and a war that has lasted the entirety of the 21st century to date, and is getting more dangerous.

The American “New Economy” is the American Third World economy in which the only jobs created are low productivity, low paid nontradable domestic service jobs incapable of producing export earnings with which to pay for the goods and services produced offshore for US consumption.

The massive debt arising from Washington’s endless wars for neoconservative hegemony now threaten Social Security and the entirety of the social safety net. The presstitute media are blaming not the policy that has devasted Americans, but, instead, the Americans who have been devasted by the policy.

Earlier this month I posted readers’ reports on the dismal job situation in Ohio, Southern Illinois, and Texas. In the March issue of Chronicles, Wayne Allensworth describes America’s declining rural towns and once great industrial cities as consequences of “globalizing capitalism.” A thin layer of very rich people rule over those “who have been left behind”—a shrinking middle class and a growing underclass. According to a poll last autumn, 53 percent of Americans say that they feel like a stranger in their own country.

Most certainly these Americans have no political representation. As Republicans and Democrats work to raise the retirement age in order to reduce Social Security outlays, Princeton University experts report that the mortality rates for the white working class are rising. The US government will not be happy until no one lives long enough to collect Social Security.

The United States government has abandoned everyone except the rich.

In the opening sentence of this article, I said that the two murderers of the American economy were jobs offshoring and financial deregulation. Deregulation greatly enhanced the ability of the large banks to financialize the economy. Financialization is the diversion of income streams into debt service. When debt service absorbs a large amount of the available income, the economy experiences debt deflation. The service of debt leaves too little income for purchases of goods and services and prices fall.

Michael Hudson, who I recently wrote about, is the expert on finanialization. His book, Killing the Host, which I recommended to you, tells the complete story. Briefly, financialization is the process by which creditors capitalize an economy’s economic surplus into interest payments to themselves. Perhaps an example would be a corporation that goes into debt in order to buy back its shares. The corporation achieves a temporary boost in its share prices at the cost of years of interest payments that drain the corporation of profits and deflate its share price.

Michael Hudson stresses the conversion of the rental value of real estate into mortgage payments. He emphasizes that classical economists wanted to base taxation not on production, but on economic rent. Economic rent is value due to location or to a monopoly position. For example, beachfront property has a higher price because of location. The difference in value between beachfront and nonbeachfront property is economic rent, not a produced value. An unregulated monopoly can charge a price for a service that is higher than the price that would bring that service unto the market.

The proposal to tax economic rent does not mean taxing you on the rent that you pay your landlord or taxing your landlord on the rent that you pay him such that he ceases to provide the housing. By economic rent Hudson means, for example, the rise in land values due to public infrastructure projects such as roads and subway systems. The rise in the value of land opened by a new road and housing and in commercial space along a new subway line is not due to any action of the property owners. This rise in value could be taxed in order to pay for the project instead of taxing the income of the population in general. Instead, the rise in land values raises appraisals and the amount that creditors are willing to lend on the property. New purchasers and existing owners can borrow more on the property, and the larger mortgages divert the increased land valuation into interest payments to creditors. Lenders end up as the major beneficiaries of public projects that raise real estate prices.

Similarly, unless the economy is financialized to such an extent that mortgage debt can no longer be serviced, when central banks lower interest rates property values rise, and this rise can be capitalized into a larger mortgage.

Another example would be property tax reductions and legislation such as California’s Proposition 13 that freeze in whole or part the property tax base. The rise in real estate values that escape taxation are capitalized into larger mortgages. New buyers do not benefit. The beneficiaries are the lenders who capture the rise in real estate prices in interest payments.

Taxing economic rent would prevent the financial system from capitalizing the rent into debt instruments that pay interest to the financial sector. Considering the amount of rents available to be taxed, taxing rents would free production from income and sales taxation, thus lowering consumer prices and freeing labor and productive capital from taxation.

With so much of land rent already capitalized into debt instruments shifting the tax burden to economic rent would be challenging. Nevertheless, Hudson’s analysis shows that financialization, not wage suppression, is the main instrument of exploitation and takes place via the financial system’s conversion of income streams into interest payments on debt.

I remember when mortgage service was restricted to one-quarter of household income. Today mortgage service can eat up half of household income. This extraordinary growth crowds out the production of goods and services as less of household income is available for other purchases.

Michael Hudson and I bring a total indictment of the neoliberal economics profession, “junk economists” as Hudson calls them.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

This article was first published in October 2015. Are we gearing up for a war between US-NATO-Turkey-Saudi Arabia and Syria-Russia-Iran?

US-NATO operatives are already on the ground inside Syria. In fact they have been on ground within “opposition” militia from the very outset in March 2011.

Russian Airstrikes are Targeting “Our Guys”: 

The Western media quoting US officials has reported that the Russian Air Force is not really targeting ISIS terrorists.

They are targeting CIA sponsored operatives inside Syria. 

According to a US official in an interview with Fox News:

‘Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.’

Moscow is “deliberately targeting” U.S.-backed forces in Syria as part of a military campaign that has killed up to 150 CIA-trained rebels, a U.S. official told Fox News

The claims state that Russia’s apparent mission to destroy ISIS is really a facade, and that their real mission is to kill American assets. (October 14, 2015).

The “Our Guys” category (“fighting for their lives”) not only includes bona fide “moderate terrorists” trained by the Western military alliance, it also includes countless Western military advisers, intelligence agents and mercenaries (often recruited by private security companies) operating on the ground inside Syria since March 2011.

In a bitter twist, by making these accusations directed against Moscow, the Obama Administration candidly acknowledges what has been known from the outset: the presence of Western forces inside Syria in support of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Lest we forget, this constitutes an undeclared act of war against a sovereign country in violation of international  law (Nuremberg).  

Amply documented, from the outset of the Syrian insurgency, Western special forces and covert intelligence agents including British SAS, French Parachutistes, CIA, MI6  and Mossad have integrated rebel ranks. Their activities are not limited to training. They are routinely involved in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with Turkish and Qatari special forces, as well thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria [2012 report] assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.  (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

From the outset of the insurgency, Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces including ISIS and Al Nusrah are “infiltrated” by Western military and intelligence  operatives.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

.

.

(The SBS operatives referred to above are the British Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service (SBS), often recruited from the Royal Marine Commandos)

These foreign forces are also involved in intelligence  and logistics as well as terror command operations directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad. They are in permanent communication and liaison  through their satellite phones with US, NATO, Turkey and Israel military and intelligence.

.

.

Without Western support, the terrorists would not have been able to gain control over entire regions of the country. In this regard, Vladimir Putin intimates that this would not be possible without foreign support:

“The so-called Islamic State [ISIS] has taken control of a huge territory. How was that possible? Think about it: if Damascus or Baghdad are seized by the terrorist groups, they will be almost the official authorities, and will have a launchpad for global expansion. Is anyone thinking about this or not?” (Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Valdai Conference, October 2015)

Covert support to the terrorists has been provided from the outset of the war in March 2011. The CIA is supporting terrorists as a means to triggering “regime change” in Syria, implying the conduct of covert intelligence operations within Syrian territory:

“The U.S. spy agency has been arming and training rebels in Syria since 2013 to fight the Assad regime  (WSJ, September 30, 2015 emphasis added)

Reports confirm that US, British and allied Special Forces have been on the ground since the outset of the war in 2011. The underlying pattern is similar to that of Libya where Western special forces had integrated terrorist ranks prior to the launching of NATO’s military intervention.

The website of Britain’s SAS candidly acknowledges that  “…[T]here has been growing chatter indicating that British Special Forces are in some way assisting forces aligned against the Syrian regime”:

Reports from late November last year state that British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations.

More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/0501012-british-special-forces-syria.php (emphasis added)

In August 2015, Britain’s Sunday Express Tabloid headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” (see screen shot below)

More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country on operation Shader, tasked with destroying IS equipment and munitions which insurgents constantly move to avoid Coalition air strikes. 

It comes just days after David Cameron gave “carte blanche” for the SAS and SBS to target IS leaders as part of the Government’s “broad spectrum” response to the murder of 30 British tourists by ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in the Tunisian beach resort of Sousse. 

Though the Prime Minister is being kept informed, senior military sources last night told the Sunday Express that he would not be required to “green light” every mission.

The article portrays SAS forces disguised as ISIS terrorists acting as part of a covert British Counter-Terrorism operation. (For further details see Stephen Lendman, British SAS Special Forces Dressed up as ISIS Terrorists, Global Research, August 4, 2015)

The truth of the matter is that these SAS commandos are there to integrate rebel ranks on the ground, overseeing carefully planned terror operations against Syria, in permanent liaison with US-NATO et al.

French Parachutistes on the Ground Advising the Terrorists

The French have been actively involved since the outset of the insurgency on the ground in liaison with their US, British and Israeli counterparts. In February 2012, 13 French military officers were arrested in Homs pointing to the presence of foreign troops on Syrian soil inside rebel ranks. The report suggested that the arrested officers could have been part of “a larger contingent” of  French Parachutistes (special forces).“ (The Daily Star  March 5, 2012)

The French government initially denied the report, insisting that “not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil.” Yet sources confirmed that negotiations between Paris and Damascus were held, in all probability regarding the repatriation of the French military officers:

“A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: “We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it.” (Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews, emphasis added)

In the wake of Judge Scalia’s passing, we bring to your attention this article originally published in February 2014:

Referring to America’s mass internment of people of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War, current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared:

“[Y]ou are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

Scalia made these comments during a speech to students at the University of Hawaii on February 3. He was asked about the Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States (1944), which involved a legal challenge by two Japanese Americans—Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi—to orders to report to mass internment camps during the war. On appeal, the Supreme Court infamously declared the internment camps constitutional on the grounds of “military urgency.”

Hawaii, where Scalia was speaking, was one of the many states in which internment camps were established.

“Well of course Korematsu was wrong,” Scalia said, in comments reported by the Associated Press. “And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

Scalia invoked the Latin expression, “Inter arma enim silent leges” (roughly, in times of war the law is silent).

“That’s what was going on—the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality,” he said.

While Scalia’s remarks took the form of nominal disapproval of the Korematsucase and mass internments, his shoulder-shrugging at “the reality” of future mass internments should be taken as a serious warning.

Since Scalia’s arrival on the Supreme Court in 1986, he has been a leading figure in the ongoing rollback of democratic and social rights. Some of the highlights of Scalia’s career include Stanford v. Kentucky (1989, upholding the death penalty for crimes committed by 16 and 17-year-olds), Bush v. Gore(2000, halting vote counting and installing George W. Bush as president), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010, removing limitations on corporate spending during elections), among many others.

There is an element of arrogant pageantry and provocation to everything Scalia does, both in his official and individual capacities. In 2004, Scalia famously went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney while a case involving the latter was pending before the Supreme Court, in flagrant violation of judicial ethics. Scalia’s contempt for the principle of separation of church and state is frequently on display, as in a 2012 speech arguing that the position that “our Constitution forbids anything that favors religion over non-religion is a lie.”

Scalia’s pronouncement on the inevitability of mass internment borrows not a little from fascist jurisprudence. Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt developed the theory that a national emergency could constitute a “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand) pursuant to which the executive may ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and democratic rights. Similarly, Scalia imagines a scenario in which mass incarceration in the US would technically be unconstitutional, but “in times of war the law is silent.”

With these comments, Scalia is effectively signaling that if concentration camps are established in the US (Scalia would “not be surprised”), the Supreme Court will stand aside and acknowledge itself powerless—doubtless with references to “national security,” “state secrets,” the “separation of powers,” the “war on terror,” and “deference to the executive in wartime.”

During the Second World War, some 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly removed to “War Relocation Camps,” where they lived in ramshackle barracks surrounded by machine gun nests and barbed wire. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave orders authorizing the establishment of the camps in 1942, and in major cities official notices were posted: “Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry” to report to gathering sites for transportation to the camps. Those who failed to comply were seized and prosecuted. Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times whipped up panic and xenophobia, infamously justifying the mass internment of Japanese Americans on the grounds that “we are at war with their race.”

Similar “exclusion orders” went into effect for Americans of German and Italian ancestry. The Korematsu decision justifying mass internment has long been considered a shameful chapter in the Supreme Court’s history, forming part of the anti-canon of cases that includes Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, defining slaves as property) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, upholding segregation).

In 1988, none other than President Ronald Reagan signed an official apology for the internments, blaming what took place on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Ultimately, approximately $1.6 billion was paid in reparations to the victims.

With Western “social democracy” in free fall collapse in the first decades of the 21st century, and with world war again threatening from innumerable global flashpoints, it would be a mistake to write off Scalia’s remarks as the idle hypothesizing of an old reactionary.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, as many as 1,200 people were illegally rounded up and detained simply for being Arab or Muslim. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 expressly gives the military the power to seize and imprison any person anywhere in the world, including within the US, on “terror” allegations—without charges, evidence, or trial.

According to documents released by Edward Snowden, the US government is already using its mass spying apparatus to construct “political profiles” of individuals. Last year, the city of Boston was placed under military lockdown, with families ordered to “shelter in place” while armed commandos conducted house-to-house searches.

In this context, Scalia’s comments doubtless reflect current moods and discussions now taking place within ruling circles. If anyone does not think it is possible for mass internment camps to be set up within the US—to use Scalia’s words, “you are kidding yourself.”

At a press conference Tuesday following a two-day summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) held in California, President Barack Obama was confronted with a question about his administration’s intentions with regard to the escalating war in Syria.

Reflecting a growing drumbeat of criticism from Republicans and sections of the US foreign policy establishment, the reporter asked whether Obama had been “outfoxed” by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Noting that Russia’s military intervention in Syria had helped turn the tide of battle in favor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the Western-backed “rebels,” the reporter asked whether Washington would “step up military action” in support of the Islamist militias it is backing if the city of Aleppo fell to the government offensive.

Obama’s reply was a study in imperialist hypocrisy, deceit and historical falsification. Insisting, “This is not a contest between me and Putin,” the US president set out to prove that Putin was not winning.

“The fact that Putin finally had to send his own troops and his own aircraft and invest this massive military operation was not a testament to a great strength; it was a testament to the weakness of Assad’s position,”

Obama insisted.

He continued:

“That if somebody is strong, then you don’t have to send in your army to prop up your ally. They have legitimacy in their country and they are able to manage it their self, and then you have good relations with them. You send in your army when the horse you’re backing isn’t effective. And that’s exactly what’s happened.”

The result, he further argued, would be Russia’s finding itself “in a quagmire,” compelled to invest in “a permanent occupation of Syria,” which would “not be the best thing for Russia,” given the state of its economy.

One is prompted to ask, who is Obama to lecture Putin? But in the end, one has to acknowledge that if anyone knows whereof he speaks on questions of quagmires and permanent occupations, it is the president of the United States.

Just last October, Obama reneged on his pledge to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan before the end of his presidency in January 2017. Ten thousand US soldiers remain deployed there, nearly 15 years after the US invaded the country in 2001. US commanders have indicated they may ask for that number to be increased in the face of a mounting insurgency against the puppet government installed by Washington. The regime in Kabul, it can truly be said, lacks legitimacy and remains in power solely thanks to the US troops propping it up.

It is a similar story in Iraq, which the US invaded in 2003, toppling its government, devastating its society and causing the deaths of an estimated one million men, women and children. Roughly 4,000 US troops are back in Iraq following the ignominious June 2014 collapse of the puppet forces the US armed and trained, at the cost of some $24 billion, in the face of an offensive by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The number of US troops—which does not count another 2,500 deployed across the border in Kuwait and some 7,000 private military contractors—is expected to climb.

Then there is Libya, whose secular government Washington and its allies brought down in the US-NATO war of 2011, killing tens of thousands of civilians, murdering the country’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and leaving Libya in a state of permanent chaos and civil war. At Tuesday’s press conference, Obama was asked by another reporter whether another “military intervention in Libya will be necessary.” He did not rule out the idea, stressing that Washington “will continue to take actions where we’ve got a clear operation and a clear target in mind.”

If there is a “quagmire” in the Middle East, it is of Washington’s creation, the product of unending wars for regime change aimed at imposing US hegemony over the region and its vast energy resources. Syria is an integral part of this process.

Obama feigned deep concern over the fate of the Syrian people, insisting that it is their welfare, not some filthy imperialist intrigue, that motivates Washington’s actions. “The question is, how can we stop the suffering, stabilize the region, stop this massive out-migration of refugees who are having such a terrible time, end the violence, stop the bombing of schools and hospitals and innocent civilians, stop creating a safe haven for ISIS,” he said.

As Obama was speaking, there was a report from Syria that a US warplane had struck a bakery in a Syrian town near the Iraqi border, killing 15 people standing in line for bread in the early morning. Moscow, meanwhile, has rejected charges that it was responsible for the bombing of schools and hospitals the day before, while the Syrian government has charged that an American air strike inflicted the worst of the casualties.

Whatever the ratio of civilian deaths caused by US versus Russian airstrikes, the undeniable fact is that the suffering of the Syrian people is the product of a concerted drive by the US, NATO and Washington’s Middle East allies to topple the government of Assad and impose a puppet regime more subservient to Western interests.

To that end, a vast operation was mounted in which the CIA, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, organized the funding and arming of Islamist militias linked to Al Qaeda and funneled tens of thousands of foreign fighters into Syria to wage a vicious sectarian war for regime change. The results of this criminal enterprise are the deaths of some 300,000 Syrians, with another 11 million turned into homeless refugees.

That Russia may become trapped in the Middle East quagmire created by decades of US military aggression is not excluded. The Putin government, representing the interests of the capitalist oligarchy that arose through the criminal appropriation of state property following the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, is intervening in Syria not out of altruistic concerns for the Syrian people, but for what it sees as the oligarchy’s own interests.

It fears that the toppling of Assad by US-backed Islamists will not only deprive Moscow of its only close ally in the Middle East, but also pave the way for a more concerted drive to isolate, weaken and ultimately dismember the Russian federation. A US puppet in Damascus would open the way to pipeline routes for Qatari gas and Saudi oil bound for Europe, undermining the foundation of the Russian economy. At the same time, the Islamist forces utilized in Syria could be unleashed on the North Caucasus, exploiting the resentments of the local population toward the repression carried out by Moscow.

Obama counseled the Russian government that it would be “smarter” to “work with the United States and other parties in the international community to try to broker some sort of political transition.” In point of fact, the Putin government has sought such an accommodation, but Washington is intent on using such negotiations to impose the regime change it has proved unable to accomplish by means of the proxy war, casting the Islamist militias as a “moderate opposition.”

Meanwhile, the danger of a full-scale military confrontation in Syria between the US and Russia, the world’s two major nuclear powers, continues to grow, with Washington’s allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, seeking to provoke such a clash as a means of furthering their own regional and domestic political interests.

For its part, US imperialism, whatever the immediate tactical calculations of the Obama administration, will be driven by the setbacks it has suffered in Syria and, more fundamentally, the deepening crisis of American capitalism to ever more brutal and reckless acts of military aggression and violence.

The Obama administration secured a court order from a California-based federal judge on Tuesday to force tech giant Apple to develop special software designed to compromise encryption security features embedded in the iPhone’s iOS 9 operating system.

The court decision, utilizing an obscure and antidemocratic law from the 18th century, is part of efforts to utilize last year’s attack in San Bernardino, California to intensify the assault on democratic rights and expand the police-state spying powers of the government.

The FBI and the Justice Department claim that the new software is necessary to enable federal investigators to search through an iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the attackers responsible for the mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino.

At stake, however, is far more than the data on Farook’s phone. The government wants broad authority to bypass encryption mechanisms on any communications that it is not presently able to monitor.

US agents have been unable to access Farook’s phone as a result of Apple’s built-in “auto-erase” feature, which deletes the smartphone’s data after ten or more incorrect attempts to unlock it. The phone’s security features prevent the agency from employing its preferred method of “brute forcing” entry, i.e., trying every possible password.

Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California ruled Tuesday that Apple must find a way to “bypass and disable” the security features on Farook’s phone. Apple will appeal the ruling within days, and the case could be decided in the Supreme Court.

Government attorneys claim that the ruling compels Apple to design software that can penetrate the iPhone’s data protection systems, citing a statute known as the All Writs Act, which allows judges to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The administration has adopted a broad interpretation of the law that effectively allows the courts to overrule constitutional limitations on state powers.

Making clear that the court action has the support of the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said on Wednesday that the Justice Department and the FBI have the Obama administration’s “full support.”

The ruling is only the latest stage in the efforts of the Obama administration and the political establishment to use the attacks in San Bernardino to counter the widespread opposition to domestic spying that followed the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Along with the terror attacks in Paris, the events in southern California have become the central pretext for a new expansion of the US government’s mass surveillance programs.

Snowden spoke out against the FBI assault on encryption Wednesday, describing the events as “the most important tech case in a decade.”

“The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights,” Snowden said in a tweet.

Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other leading firms entered into secret contracts with the US government from the mid-2000s onward, giving the NSA access to electronic communications data stored on their servers, as revealed in NSA documents released by Snowden beginning in the summer of 2013. The documents also showed that the NSA had set up numerous illegal and unconstitutional programs that seek to monitor all telephone records, emails and other communications in the US and internationally.

Pointing to the broad implications of the ruling in a letter released on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook described the government’s request as “unprecedented,” saying that the technology demanded by the FBI could be used against hundreds of millions of devices.

“It would be the equivalent of a master key,” Cook wrote. “Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features.”

“The government is asking Apple to hack our own users,” Cook wrote. The spy software could be used to “intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.” The software hack would “have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

However, lest there be any doubt about Apple’s allegiance to the intelligence establishment and its “war on terror,” Cook went on to insist that Apple has “done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help [the FBI].”

“When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it,” Cook wrote. “We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good.”

Apple’s opposition to the FBI’s anti-encryption drive flows from the material interests of its shareholders. Apple is engaged in a competitive struggle for market share on a world scale and stands to lose business, both from consumers and from foreign governments, if it is perceived as being completely penetrated by the US spy apparatus.

According to an article in the New York Times, Apple had “hoped to resolve the impasse without having to rewrite their own encryption software.” The company was “frustrated by the Justice Department’s refusal to file its demands under seal rather than airing them in court, according to an industry executive with knowledge of the case.” In other words, because the request became publicly known, the company felt compelled to release a statement opposing the ruling.

Intelligence agencies have been pressing for legislation to bypass encryption mechanisms since long before the San Bernardino attacks. FBI Director James Comey has agitated for new laws requiring the installation of “backdoor” access to encryption technology almost continuously since taking office. The attacks, however, were immediately used to escalate the “war on terror campaign” and shift the entire political establishment to the right.

One of the possible outcomes of the dispute with Apple is the passage of legislation in Congress that would explicitly authorize the government to force companies to give it access to text messages and other encrypted data on cell phones. Leading Democrats and Republicans in Congress moved quickly to back the court decision and criticize Apple for opposing it.

The basic target of these moves—as with the police-state spying apparatus as a whole—is not the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, but all opposition to the American ruling class’s policy of war and social reaction. As the United States prepares for a massive escalation of military violence, it is at the same time intensifying the assault on democratic rights at home.

Antti J. Ronkainen: The Federal Reserve is the most significant central bank in the world. How does it contribute to the domestic policy of the United States?

Michael Hudson: The Federal Reserve supports the status quo. It would not want to create a crisis before the election. Today it is part of the Democratic Party’s re-election campaign, and its job is to serve Hillary Clinton’s campaign contributors on Wall Street. It is trying to spur recovery by resuming its Bubble Economy subsidy for Wall Street, not by supporting the industrial economy. What the economy needs is a debt writedown, not more debt leveraging such as Quantitative Easing has aimed to promote. But the Fed is in a state of denial that the U.S. and European economies are plagued by debt deflation.

Michael Hudson

The Fed uses only one policy: influencing interest rates by creating bank reserves at low give-away charges. It enables banks too make easy gains simply by borrowing from it and leaving the money on deposit to earn interest (which has been paid since the 2008 crisis to help subsidize the banks, mainly the largest ones). The effect is to fund the asset markets – bonds, stocks and real estate – not the economy at large. Banks also are heavy arbitrage players in foreign exchange markets. But this doesn’t help the economy recover, any more than the ZIRP (Zero Interest-Rate Policy) since 2001 has done for Japan. Financial markets are the liabilities side of the economy’s balance sheet, not the asset side.

The last thing either U.S. party wants is for the election to focus on this policy failure. The Fed, Treasury and Justice Department will be just as pro-Wall Street under Hillary. There would be no prosecutions of bank fraud, there would be another bank-friendly Attorney General, and a willingness to subsidize banks now that the Dodd-Frank bank reform has been diluted from what it originally promised to be.

So let’s go back to beginning. When the Great Financial Crisis escalated in 2008 the Fed’s response was to lower its main interest rate to nearly zero. Why?

The aim of lowering interest rates was to provide banks with cheap credit. The pretense was that banks might lend to help the economy get going again. But the Fed’s idea was simply to re-inflate the Bubble Economy. It aimed at restoring the value of the mortgages that banks had in their loan portfolios. The hope was that easy credit would spur new mortgage lending to bid housing prices back up – as if this would help the economy rather than simply raising the price of home ownership.

But banks weren’t going to make mortgage loans to a housing market that already was over-lent. Instead, homeowners had to start paying down the mortgages they had taken out. Banks also reduced their credit-card exposure by a few hundred billion dollars. So instead of receiving new credit, the economy was saddled with having to repay debts.

Banks did make money, but not by lending into the “real” production and consumption economy. They mainly engaged in arbitrage and speculation, and lending to hedge funds and companies to buy their own stocks yielding higher dividend returns than the low interest rates that were available.

In addition to the near zero interest rates, the Fed bought US Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities (MBS) with almost $4 trillion during three rounds of Quantitative Easing stimulus. How have these measures affected the real economy and financial markets?

In 2008 the Federal Reserve had a choice: It could save the economy, or it could save the banks. It might have used a fraction of what became the vast QE credit – for example $1 trillion – to pay off the bad mortgages and write them down. That would have helped save the economy from debt deflation. Instead, the Fed simply wanted to re-inflate the bubble, to save banks from having to suffer losses on their junk mortgages and other bad loans.

Keeping these debts on the books, in full, let banks foreclose on defaulting homeowners. This intensified the debt-deflation, pushing the economy into its present post-2008 depression. The debt overhead is keeping it depressed.

One therefore can speak of a financial war waged by Wall Street against the economy. The Fed is a major weapon in this war. Its constituency is Wall Street. Like the Justice and Treasury Departments, it has been captured and taken hostage.

Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen’s husband, George Akerlof, has written a good article about looting and fraud as ways to make money. But instead of saying that looting and fraud are bad, the Fed has refused to regulate or move against such activities. It evidently recognizes that looting and fraud are what Wall Street is all about – or at least that the financial system would come crashing down if an attempt were made to clean it up!

So neither the Fed nor the Justice Department or other U.S. Government agencies has sanctioned or arrested a single banker for the trillions of dollars of financial fraud. Just the opposite: The big banks where the fraud was concentrated have been made even larger and more dominant. The effect has been to drive out of business the smaller banks not so involved in derivative bets and other speculation.

The bottom line is that banks made much more by getting Alan Greenspan and the Clinton-Bush Treasury officials to deregulate fraud than they could have made by traditional safe lending. But their gains have increased the economy’s overhead.

Do you believe Mike Whitney’s argument that QE was about a tradeoff between the Fed and the government: the Fed pumped the new bubble and saved the banks that the government didn’t need to bail out more banks. The government’s role was to impose austerity so that inflation and employment didn’t rise – which would have forced the Fed to raise interest rates, ending its QE program? source:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/15/the-chart-that-explains-everything/]

That was a great chart that Mike put up from Richard Koo, and you should reproduce it here. It shows that the Fed’s enormous credit creation had zero effect on raising commodity prices or wages. But stock market prices doubled in just six years, 2008-15, and bond prices rose to new peaks. Banks left much of the QE credit on deposit with the Fed, earning an interest giveaway premium.

(Richard Koo: “The struggle between markets and central banks has only just begun,”

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-struggle-between-markets-and-central-banks-has-only-just-begun-2015-9?r=UK&IR=T

The important point is that the Fed (backed by the Obama Administration) refused to use this $4 trillion to revive the production-and-consumption economy. It claimed that such a policy would be “inflationary,” by which it meant raising employment and wage levels. The Fed thus accepted the neoliberal junk economics proposing austerity as the answer to any problem – austerity for the industrial economy, not the Fed’s own Wall Street constituency.

According to a Fed staff report, QE would lower the exchange rate of dollar to the other currencies causing competitiveness boost for the U.S. firms. Former finance minister of Brazil Guido Mantega, as well as the chairman of Central Bank of India Raghuram Rajan, have described the Fed’s QE as a “currency war.” What’s your take?

The Fed’s aim was simply to provide banks with low-interest credit. Banks lent to hedge funds to buy securities or make financial bets that yielded more than 0.1 percent. They also lent to companies to buy their own stock, and to corporate raiders for debt-financed mergers and acquisitions. But banks didn’t lend to the economy at large, because it already was “loaned up,” and indeed, overburdened with debt.

Lower interest rates did spur the “carry trade,” as they had done in Japan after 1990. Banks and hedge funds bought foreign bonds paying higher rates. The dollar drifted down as bank arbitrageurs could borrow from the Fed at 0.1 percent to lend to Brazil at 9 percent. Buying these foreign bonds pushed up foreign exchange rates against the dollar. That was a side effect of the Fed’s attempt to help Wall Street make financial gains. It simply didn’t give much consideration to how its QE flooding the global economy with surplus dollars would affect U.S. exports – or foreign countries.

Exchange rate shifts don’t affect export trends as much as textbook models claim. U.S. arms exports to the Near East, and many technology exports are non-competitive. However, a looming problem for most countries is what may happen when ending QE increases the dollar’s exchange rate. If U.S. interest rates go back up, the dollar will strengthen. That would increase the cost to foreign countries of paying dollar-denominated debts. Countries that borrowed all dollars at low interest will need to pay more in their own currencies to service these debts. Imagine what would happen if the Federal Reserve let interest rates rise back to a normal level of 4 or 5 percent. The soaring dollar would push debtor economies toward depression on capital account much more than it would help their exports on trade account.

You have said that QE is fracturing the global economy. What do you mean by that?

Part of the flood of dollar credit is used to buy shares of foreign companies yielding 15 to 20 percent, and foreign bonds. These dollars are turned over to foreign central banks for domestic currency. But central banks are only able to use these dollars to buy U.S. Treasury securities, yielding about 1 percent. When the People’s Bank of China buys U.S. Treasury bonds, it’s financing America’s dual budget and balance-of-payment deficits, both of which stem largely from military encirclement of Eurasia – while letting U.S. investors and the U.S. economy get a free ride.

Instead of buying U.S. Treasury securities, China would prefer to buy American companies, just like U.S. investors are buying Chinese industry. But America’s government won’t permit China even to buy gas station companies. The result is a double standard. Americans feel insecure having Chinese ownership in their companies. It is the same attitude that was directed against Japan in the late 1980s.

I wrote about this financial warfare and America’s free lunch via the dollar standard in Super Imperialism (2002) and The Bubble and Beyond (2012), and about how today’s New Cold War is being waged financially in Killing the Host (2015).

The Democrats loudly criticized the Bush administration’s $700 billion TARP-program, but backed the Fed’s QE purchases worth of almost $4 trillion during the Obama administration. How does this relate to the fact that officially, QE purchases were intended to support economic recovery?

I think you’ve got the history wrong. My Killing the Host describes how the Democrats supported TARP, while the Republican Congress opposed it on populist grounds. Republican Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered to use some of the money to aid over-indebted homeowners, but President-elect Obama blocked that – and then appointed Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. FDIC head Sheila Bair and by SIGTARP head Neil Barofsky have written good books about Geithner’s support for Wall Street (and especially for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs) against the interests of the economy at large.

If you are going to serve Wall Street – your major campaign contributors – you are going to need a cover story pretending that this will help the economy. Politicians start with “Column A”: their agenda to reimburse their campaign contributors – Wall Street and other special interests. Their public relations team and speechwriters then draw up “Column B”: what public voters want. To get votes, a rhetorical cover story is crafted. I describe this in my forthcoming J is for Junk Economics, to be published in March. It’s a dictionary of Orwellian doublethink, political and economic euphemisms to turn the vocabulary around and mean the opposite of what actually is meant.

How do TARP and QE relate to the Federal Reserve’s mandate about price stability?

There are two sets of prices: asset prices and commodity prices and wages. By “price stability” the Fed means keeping wages and commodity prices down. Calling depressed wage levels “price stability” diverts attention from the phenomenon of debt deflation – and also from the asset-price inflation that has increased the advantages of the One Percent over the 99 Percent. From 1980 to the present, the Fed has inflated the largest bond rally in history as a result of driving down interest rates from 20 percent in 1980 to nearly zero today, as you have noted.

Chicago School monetarism ignores asset prices. It pretends that when you increase the money supply, this increases consumer prices, commodity prices and wages proportionally. But that’s not what happens. When banks created credit (money), they don’t lend much to people to buy goods and services or for companies to make capital investments to employ more workers. They lend money mainly to transfer ownership of assets already in place. About 80 percent of bank loans are mortgages, and the rest are largely for stocks and bond purchases, including corporate takeovers and stock buybacks or debt-leveraged purchases. The effect is to bid up asset prices, while loading down the economy with debt in the process. This pushes up the break-even cost of doing business, while imposing debt deflation on the economy at large.

Wall Street isn’t so interested in exploiting wage labour by hiring it to produce goods for sale, as was the case under industrial capitalism in its heyday. It makes its gains by riding the wave of asset inflation. Banks also gain by making labour pay more interest, fees and penalties on mortgages, and for student loans, credit cards and auto loans. That’s the postindustrial financial mode of exploiting labor and the overall economy. The Fed’s QE program increases the price at which stocks, bonds and real estate exchange for labour, and also promotes debt leverage throughout the economy.

Why don’t economists distinguish between asset-price and commodity price inflation?

The economics curriculum has been turned into an exercise for students to pretend that a hypothetical parallel universe exists in which the rentier classes are job creators, necessary to help economies recover. The reality is that financial modes of getting rich by debt leveraging creates a Bubble Economy – a Ponzi scheme leading to austerity and shrinking markets, which always ends in a convulsion of bankruptcy.

The explanation for why this is not central to today’s economic theory is that the discipline has been captured by this neoliberal tunnel vision that overlooks the financial sector’s maneuvering to make quick trading profits in stocks, bonds, mortgages and derivatives, not to take the time and effort to develop long-term markets. Rentiers seek to throw a cloak of invisibility around how they make money. They know that if economists don’t measure their wealth and the public does not see it, voters will be less likely to bring pressure to regulate and tax it.

Today’s central economic problem is that inflating asset prices by debt leveraging extracts more interest and financial charges. When the resulting debt deflation ends up hollowing out the economy, creditors try to blame labour, or government spending (except for bailouts and QE to help Wall Street). It is as if debtors are exploiting their creditors.

If there is a new class war, what is the current growth model?

It’s an austerity model, as you can see from the eurozone and from the neoliberal consensus that cites Latvia as a success story rather than a disaster leading to de-industrialization and emigration. In real democracies, if economies polarize like they are doing today, you would expect the 99 Percent to fight back by electing representatives to enact progressive taxation, regulate finance and monopolies, and make public investment to raise wages and living standards. In the 19th century this drive led parliaments to rewrite the tax rules to fall more on landlords and monopolists.

Industrial capitalism plowed profits back into new means of production to expand the economy. But today’s rentier model is based on austerity and privatization. The main way the financial sector always has obtained wealth has been by privatizing it from the public domain by insider dealing and indebting governments.

The ultimate financial business plan also is to lend with an eye to end up with the debtor’s property, from governments to companies and families. In Greece the European Central Bank, European Commission and IMF demanded that if the nation’s elected representatives did not sell off the nation’s ports, land, islands, roads, schools, sewer systems, water systems, television stations and even museums to reimburse the dreaded austerity troika for its bailout of bondholders and bankers, the country would be isolated from Europe and faced with a crash. That forced Greece to capitulate.

What seems at first glance to be democracy has been hijacked by politicians who accept the financial class war ideology that the way for an economy to get rich is by austerity. That means lowering wages, unemployment, and dismantling government by turning the public domain over to the financial sector.

By supporting the banking sector even in its predatory and outright fraudulent behavior, U.S. and European governments are reversing the trajectory along which 19th-century progressive industrial capitalism and socialism were moving. Today’s rentier class is not concerned with long-term tangible investment to earn profits by hiring workers to produce goods. Under finance capitalism, an emerging financial over-class makes money by stripping income and assets from economies driven deeper into debt. Attacking “big government” when it is democratic, the wealthy are all in favor of government when it is oligarchic and serves their interests by rolling back the past two centuries of democratic reforms.

Does the Fed realize global turbulences what its unconventional policies have caused?

Sure. But the Fed has painted itself in a corner: If it raises interest rates, this will cause the stock and bond markets to go down. That would reverse the debt leveraging that has kept these markets up. Higher interest rates also would bankrupt Third World debtors, which will not be able to pay their dollar debts if dollars become more expensive in their currencies.

But if the Fed keeps interest rates low, pension funds and insurance companies will have difficulty making the paper gains that their plans imagined could continue exponentially ad infinitum. So whatever it does, it will destabilize the global economy.

China’s stock market has crashed, western markets are very volatile, and George Soros has said that the current financial environment reminds him of the 2008 crash. Should we be worried?

News reports make it sound as if debt-ridden capitalist economies will face collapse if the socialist countries don’t rescue them from their shrinking domestic markets. I think Soros means that the current financial environment is fragile and highly debt-leveraged, with heavy losses on bad loans, junk bonds and derivatives about to be recognized. Regulators may permit banks to “extend and pretend” that bad loans will turn good someday. But it is clear that most government reports and central bankers are whistling in the dark. Changes in any direction may pull down derivatives. That will cause a break in the chain of payments when losers can’t pay. The break may spread and this time public opinion is more organized against 2008-type bailouts.

The moral is that debts that can’t be paid, won’t be. The question is, how won’t they be paid? By writing down debts, or by foreclosures and distress sell-offs turning the financial class into a ruling oligarchy? That is the political fight being waged today – and as Warren Buffet has said, his billionaire class is winning it.

That’s all for now. Thank you Michael!

President Obama, who once called the idea of “moderate” Syrian rebels a “fantasy,” has maintained the fiction to conceal the fact that many “moderates” are fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s jihadists, an inconvenient truth that is complicating an end to Syria’s civil war, explains Gareth Porter.

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that the agreement with Russia on a temporary halt in the war in Syria can only be carried out if Russia stops its airstrikes against what Kerry is now calling “legitimate opposition groups.”

But what Kerry did not say is that the ceasefire agreement would not apply to operations against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the Nusra Front, which both the United States and Russia have recognized as a terrorist organization. That fact is crucial to understand why the Obama administration’s reference to “legitimate opposition groups” is a deception intended to mislead public opinion.

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Russian airstrikes in question are aimed at cutting off Aleppo city, which is now the primary center of Nusra’s power in Syria, from the Turkish border. To succeed in that aim, Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces are attacking rebel troops deployed in towns all along the routes from Aleppo to the border.Those rebels include units belonging to Nusra, their close ally Ahrar al-Sham, and other armed opposition groups – some of whom have gotten weapons from the CIA in the past.

Kerry’s language suggests that those other “legitimate opposition groups” are not part of Nusra’s military structure but are separate from it both organizationally and physically. But in fact, there is no such separation in either of the crucial provinces of Idlib and Aleppo.

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

This reality even slips into mainstream U.S. news accounts on occasion, such as Anne Barnard’s New York Times article last Saturday about the proposed Syrian cease-fire in which she reported, “With the proviso that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, can still be bombed, Russia puts the United States in a difficult position; the insurgent groups it supports cooperate in some places with the well-armed, well-financed Nusra in what they say is a tactical alliance of necessity against government forces.”

At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar. The strategy called for supplying TOW anti-tank missiles to the “Syrian Revolutionaries Front” (SRF) as the core of a client Syrian army that would be independent of the Nusra Front.

However, when a combined force of Nusra and non-jihadist brigades including the SRF captured the Syrian army base at Wadi al-Deif in December 2014, the truth began to emerge. The SRF and other groups to which the United States had supplied TOW missiles had fought under Nusra’s command to capture the base.

And as one of the SRF fighters who participated in the operation, Abu Kumayt, recalled to The New York Times, after the victory only Nusra and its very close ally Ahrar al-Sham were allowed to enter the base. Nusra had allowed the groups supported by the United States to maintain the appearance of independence from Nusra, according to Abu Kumyt, in order to induce the United States to continue the supply of U.S. weapons.

Playing Washington

In other words, Nusra was playing Washington, exploiting the Obama administration’s desire to have its own Syrian Army as an instrument for influencing the course of the war. The administration was evidently a willing dupe.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who had been supporting an aggressive program of arming opposition brigades that had been approved by the CIA, told a January 2015 seminar in Washington, “For a long time we have looked the other way while the Nusra Front and armed groups on the ground, some of which are getting help from us, have coordinated in military operations against the regime.”

Reflecting the views of some well-placed administration officials, he added, “I think the days of us looking the other way are finished.” But instead of breaking with the deception that the CIA’s hand-picked clients were independent of Nusra, the Obama administration continued to cling to it.

Nusra and its allies were poised to strike the biggest blow against the Assad regime up to the time – the capture of Idlib province. Although some U.S.-supported groups participated in the campaign in March and April 2015, the “operations room” planning the campaign was run by Al Qaeda and its close ally Ahrar al Sham.

And before the campaign was launched, Nusra had forced another U.S.-supported group, Harakat Hazm, to disband and took all of its TOW anti-tank missiles.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were financing the “Army of Conquest,” commanded by Nusra, and were lobbying the administration to support it. U.S. strategy on Syria was then shifting toward a tacit reliance on the jihadists to achieve the U.S. objective of putting sufficient pressure on the Assad regime to force some concessions on Damascus.

But the idea that an independent “moderate” armed opposition still existed – and that the United States was basing its policy on those “moderates” – was necessary to provide a political fig leaf for the covert and indirect U.S. reliance on Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise’s military success.

When the fall of Idlib led to the Russian intervention last September, the U.S. immediately resorted to its propaganda line about Russian targeting of the “moderate” armed opposition. It had become a necessary shield for the United States to continue playing a political-diplomatic game in Syria.

As the current Russian-Syrian-Iranian offensive between Aleppo and the Turkish border unfolds, the Obama administration’s stance has been contradicted by fresh evidence of the subordination of non-jihadist forces to the Nusra Front. In late January, Nusra consolidated its role as the primary opposition military force in the eastern part of Aleppo City by sending a huge convoy of 200 vehicles loaded with fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London.

BBC reported that “thousands of troops” had just arrived in Aleppo for the coming battle. Ahrar al-Sham confirmed on Feb. 2 that its ally, the Nusra Front, had deployed a large convoy of “reinforcements” to Aleppo. The pro-Assad Beirut daily As-Safir reported that the convoys also included artillery, tanks and armored vehicles, and that Nusra had taken over a number of buildings to serve as its headquarters and offices.

How Al Qaeda Controls

An assessment published on Saturday by the Institute for the Study of War, which has long advocated more U.S. military assistance to Syrian anti-Assad groups, provides further insights into the Nusra Front’s system of control over U.S.-supported groups. One way the jihadist organization maintains that control, according to the study, is Ahrar al Sham’s control of the Bab al Hawa border crossing with Turkey, which gives Nusra and Ahrar power over the distribution of supplies from Turkey into Aleppo City and surrounding areas.

ISW points out that another instrument of control is the use of “military operations rooms” in which Nusra and Ahrar al Sham play the dominant role while allocating resources and military roles to lesser military units.

Although the Nusra Front is not listed as part of the “Army of Aleppo” formally announced to combat the Russian offensive, it is hardly credible that it does not hold the primary positions in the operations room for the Aleppo campaign, given the large infusion of Nusra troops into the theater from Idlib and its history in other such operations rooms in the Idlib and Aleppo regions.

Yet another facet of Nusra’s power in Aleppo is its control over the main water and power plants in the opposition-controlled districts of the city. But the ultimate source of Nusra’s power over U.S.-supported groups is the threat to attack them as agents of the United States and take over their assets. Al Qaeda’s franchise “successfully destroyed two U.S.-backed groups in Northern Syria in 2014 and early 2015,” ISW recalls, and initiated a campaign last October against one of the remaining U.S.-supported groups, Nour al Din al Zenki.

The official U.S. posture on the current offensive in the Aleppo theater and the proposed ceasefire obscures the fact that a successful Russian-Syrian operation would make it impossible for the external states, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to resupply the Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham and thus end the military threat to the Syrian government as well as the possibility of Al Qaeda’s seizure of power in Damascus.

Russian-Syrian success offers the most realistic prospect for an end to the bloodletting in Syria and would also reduce the likelihood of an eventual Al Qaeda seizure of power in Syria.

The Obama administration certainly understands that fact and has already privately adjusted its diplomatic strategy to take into account the likelihood that the Nusra Front will now be substantially weakened. But it cannot acknowledge any of that publicly because such a recognition would infuriate many hardliners in Washington who still demand “regime change” in Damascus whatever the risks.

President Obama is under pressure from these domestic critics as well as from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other GCC allies to oppose any gains by the Russians and the Assad regime as a loss for the United States. And Obama administration must continue to hide the reality that it was complicit in a strategy of arming Nusra – in part through the mechanism of arming Washington’s “moderate” clients – to achieve leverage on the Syrian regime.

Thus the game of diplomacy and deceptions continues.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Image. F. William Engdahl

One of my often-cited sayings is around 2,500 years old. It’s from the respected Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in his small masterpiece, The Art of War. For centuries it’s been one of the most influential strategy writings not only in Asia, but also the Western world. It goes as follows:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

In geopolitical analysis, when I examine a major political or economic development, it’s very important that I first look into myself, to feel if I’m blurring my analysis because of deep-felt personal wishes for a peaceful, more harmonious world, blurring the reality of a given nation or groups of nations. Similarly, if I take those malevolent patriarchs who dominate American and NATO policies today, I must be certain I know, not merely the surface of what an American President or Secretary of State might say on a given day. It can be a lie, a slick maneuver or it can be even honest. The work of any serious analyst is to sort out which it is, to go deeper, to “mine” the lode in order to see the real strategic implications.

Such is the case with finding out what is the real Washington policy—the economic and foreign policy today. For example, what is the real meaning and purpose behind the journey of the 92-year-old Henry Kissinger to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin and others recently? What’s the real purpose of John Kerry when he appears to follow a policy more friendly towards Russia than, say, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland or Secretary of Defense Ash Carter? Is it the voice of a significant faction within the foreign policy establishment that genuinely seeks a shift in Washington policy with Moscow from confrontation and war towards detente, diplomacy and a policy of peace and economic cooperation? What’s the real intent of the Roman Pope in wanting to come together with the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the first such meeting between those two churches–east and west–since the Great Schism of 1054? Is that a positive step towards world peace or is it something ominous?

Washington: confusion or deception?

It’s a widespread notion, fostered by US and European mainstream and other media, even by media in Russia and China that Washington is in confused disarray, a Superpower or hegemon which has lost its bearings. Media analysts write of a policy clash or internal factional battle that renders any US action in destroying DAESH or ISIS in Syria and Iraq a ludicrous, bumbling joke.

From years of looking at US foreign policy, I’ve learned to bring a certain respect in to my assessment. The respect is not at all admiration but an appreciation that, after all, the world’s most powerful Superpower did not come to that position of power without extraordinary skills, cunning, a remarkable ability to lie convincingly, to deceive, to very precisely manipulate the weaknesses of their opponents.

That deception has been the hallmark of American foreign policy for the entire post-1945 period, as towards the Soviet Union of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989, when Gorbachev trusted his American interlocutors who solemnly promised that the West would never advance NATO to the East. The deception is the hallmark of US economic policies since Bretton Woods in 1944 established the Dollar as supreme, and which destroyed any potential challenge to the domination of the US dollar as reserve currency—the most strategic of the American pillars of power aside from that of the US military.

Some years ago I was told by a former West Point officer that the cadets of West Point who go on to become America’s future colonels, generals and military strategists, are steeped in Sun Tzu as well as in Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, which teaches “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”

In international politics, it’s unwise to believe your enemy is stupid. It can be fatal. Mistakes, of course, they continuously make, only to re-program and correct or push on another front in their obsession with world power and control.

More useful is to assume they have a well-thought-through strategy behind a veil of Machiavellian lies and deception, rather than to assume stupidity as our operating premise. So, amid a most incredible array of contradictory indications out of Washington, what’s going on between the actors in the war against Syria and the entire Middle East today, in February 2016?

Using Russia in Syria

If we look at current US policies in the Middle East, especially in Syria and in Iraq, and assume it is a very well-thought-out strategy to reach a specific, well-defined goal, the situation looks very different.

My current conclusion is that under a smokescreen of apparent policy confusion and incompetence on the side of Washington, of the Pentagon, of the State Department and their backers on Wall Street, there is a carefully-planned strategy to ignite a war in the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East that will dramatically alter the political and geopolitical oil map of the world. Yes, another war about oil like so many of the wars of the last century, a Century of War as one of my books calls it.

The Washington-Wall Street think tanks behind the coming change are orchestrating the actions of state actors in the Middle East who, blinded by their own greed or desire for empire, Ottoman or Saudi, see not that they are falling into a fatal trap.

They apparently haven’t studied Sun Tzu, much less, even a thought of such deep themes as knowing themselves and knowing their enemy. They are mostly driven by burning hate, as with Erdogan and his Turkey today–hate for the Syrians, for the Kurds, for the Europeans, even for the Saudis with whom Erdogan claims to be allied. In Erdogan’s Kasbah, everyone has their daggers ready behind their backs.

Washington sets the trap

What can be the true strategy of Washington and their patrons in Wall Street in the present Middle East chaos called the “war to defeat DAESH” or IS?

It’s useful to go back to the end of September, 2015 when Russia surprised not only Washington, but the entire world, with the swiftness and effectiveness of its requested military intervention against DAESH and other terror groups destroying Syria.

It’s clear from the lack of an effective Washington response, and from subsequent Washington actions, that their policy strategists took time to recalculate their original regime change strategy for Syria. What emerges is the clear evidence that they decided to actually use that Russian military intervention to advance their original strategic plan for the region, much like classical martial arts teaches–use your opponent’s force against them. It smacks of Churchill’s strategy of luring Hitler into a Polish invasion in 1939 so Britain could declare war on Germany, but waiting until Germany invaded the Soviet Union before seriously acting, the period of so-called Phony War.

Washington has orchestrated events, including the apparent US-Russian accord around the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 of December 18, 2015 that led to Geneva III “peace” talks. The Geneva III talks were sabotaged from the outset by Washington’s control of the UN “peace” mediators, including US diplomat, now UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffery D. Feltman, and his subordinate, Staffan de Mistura, the Machiavellian United Nations Envoy to Syria and the Arab League. Washington acceded to Saudi demands that the large Syrian Kurdish minority, who are in the firing lines of DAESH in Syria, be excluded, and that Syrian “opposition” be determined by the oil-hungry Saudis.

Now, following the Munich talks of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) on February 12, co-chaired by Kerry and Lavrov, Russia and the USA have on paper agreed that, “cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.” Further, “The members of the ISSG reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria.”

Now there are two points that I find flashing red. The “cessation of hostilities” means that Russian highly-effective air support to the Syrian National Army and Hezbollah and other pro-Assad forces will stop or be significantly reduced at a critical point. Russian parliamentarians claim cessation will not apply to the areas around Aleppo controlled by DAESH or Al-Nusra Front, but that remains to be seen. In either case it is a trap.

That ceasefire will happen just as Syrian forces, backed by Russia are on the brink of a major victory in Aleppo, breaking the DAESH supply lines to Erdogan’s Turkey, the oatron of DAESH along with the Saudi monarchy. Second, there is no demand that DAESH or Al-Nusra cease “hostilities.” That means Russia has agreed to stop support of Assad but DAESH is no party to the deal, leaving it free to rearm with Turkish and Saudi support. Now the plot thickens and gets very dangerous.

Janus-faced Washington

Washington policy–the policy of the USA military-industrial complex and their Wall Street bankers– has in no way changed. That’s clear. I find no convincing evidence to the contrary. They plan to destroy Syria as a functioning nation, to finish the destruction of Iraq begun in 1991, and to spread that destruction now to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, and across the entire oil and gas-rich Middle East. They are simply using other means to that end given the “game-changing” presence of Russia since September 30.

While State Secretary John Kerry was working the “soft cop” routine with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the run-up to the February 12 Munich talks, on February 10 a Pentagon spokesman falsely accused the Russian military of hitting two hospitals in Aleppo, even though, by prior agreement, it was US aircraft that operated over the city on that day. The US Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren, charged that Russian aircraft in Syria were using “dumb” bombs, “indiscriminately scattering those bombs across populated areas regardless of whether those populated areas have women and children, civilians or hospitals,” charges denied by Moscow.

Two days later in Munich, Lavrov, on behalf of Moscow, apparently compromised on its offer to impose a ceasefire in three weeks and instead accepted one week, a potentially devastating setback for the near-victory of the Syrian National Army forces to retake Aleppo and seal the Turkey DAESH supply route. It’s interesting that that decision came only nine days after Henry Kissinger met with Putin in Moscow. We may never know if there was a connection. Then on February 12, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the committee for international affairs at the Federation Council, told TASS that the areas still occupied by terrorists such as DAESH and Al-Nusra were not covered by the Munich ceasefire.

The Pentagon is also quietly putting “boots on the ground” in Iraq. War jargon in Washington has become so dehumanized in the era of drone warfare that we no longer speak of the soldiers, merely their “boots.” They are preparing a major military move in Syria whether through Turkish and Saudi proxies or direct, or both, despite the nice sounding words about humanitarian aid and UN supervised Syrian elections in 18 months. At the same time, US military veterans are preparing the propaganda in the US for a ten-year siege before the US could drive the last DAESH terrorist out of the oil-rich Mosul, the heart of north Iraqi oil production.

On January 22 in an interview with CNBC Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the US intends to defeat Islamic State’s greatest strongholds: the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the IS “capital” Raqqa, in Syria.

“We’re looking for opportunities to do more and there will be boots on the ground, and I want to be clear about that. But it’s a strategic question whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold rather than trying to substitute for them,” Carter said. “We’re prepared to do a great deal because we have the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. We can do a lot ourselves,” Carter said.

The US says it has already sent 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to gather intelligence and maintain contacts with local forces. “It is a keyhole through which one gets a lot of insight, and thereby allows us more effectively to bring the huge weight of coalition military power to bear on the battlefield in an effective way,” he stated. A leading Russian Duma parliamentarian, Vladimir Soloyvov, head of the Russian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, dismisses Carter’s statements as a Washington publicity move to “steal thunder in fighting terrorism in the Middle East,” a sign that some at least in the Russian policy establishment do not really know their enemy.

A spreading world war

I’m going to make a prediction which you can verify as accurate or, hopefully, not. In about two months I estimate, around late March or April it will be clear. The US Machiavellians have lured not only Turkey’s Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman, but now Moscow into their trap in the Middle East. The initial losers in this unfolding deadly game will be Saudi, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and likely Russia. The ultimate losers, eventually, will also be the American Patriarchs or oligarchs behind these incessant wars of destruction, but not immediately, short of a miracle.

Look carefully at the little-reported statements in recent days of two key Washington war actors–Joe Biden and John Kerry. On January 24, Vice President Joe Biden, the one who orchestrated the US coup d’ etat in Kiev in February 2014, met with Turkish President and would-be Sultan of a neo-Ottoman imperium, Recep Erdogan. Biden told Erdogan and Prime Minister Davotoglu that Washington wanted Turkey and Iraq to “coordinate” on an emerging US military plan to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul from DAESH or the so-called Islamic State. An Obama Administration official described the Mosul attack as in “hard-core planning” stages, though not imminent.

The unnamed US “senior” official, most likely Biden, stated that the US is also selecting several hundred Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as some Turks, who Turkey says its government has identified as “potential fighters,” to help the US close the roughly 60 miles of border with Syria that remains under Islamic State control. The source added that Washington is hoping to finalize a package in coming weeks of new technological assistance for Turkey to aid in securing that stretch of border.

Biden also strongly backed Turkey’s fight against the Turkish Kurdish PKK and said that the US would strengthen its military campaign against ISIS if there is no agreement on a political solution in Syria. Joe Biden well knows that Erdogan and Turkish MIT intelligence head, Hakan Fidan fully back DAESH and fully are out to create ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in Turkey, and in Syria. He knows because the CIA worked with Fidan, a US educated Turkish military veteran, at secret Turkish bases over the past two years to train DAESH terrorists in the Washington war against Assad.

If you are beginning to smell a big skunk here, you have a healthy sense of smell.

So now we have Washington and Erdogan bringing undesired US and Turkish troops into Iraq’s Mosul region to prepare a major military operation, with or without the agreement of Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has repeatedly and impotently demanded the Turkish army leave Mosul.

Why Mosul?

You may fairly ask, why Mosul? To paraphrase Bill Clinton in his 1992 famous retort to George H.W. Bush, “It’s the oil, stupid.” The US failed operation dubbed Arab Spring, the failed CIA and Obama Administration backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across Middle East oil states, and now their operations with Turkey in Mosul and Syria are all about the oil.

This time, however it isn’t about taking over the rich oilfields of Iraq and Syria. It’s about destroying them. The US-engineered, French-executed destruction of Qaddafi’s Libya is the model. Iraq, as Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Policy Task Force discovered, holds the world’s third largest proven conventional oil reserves, on a par with Iran, with Saudi reserves the largest. The area around Mosul and the Kurd-controlled Kirkuk fields nearby are the current focus of the US military strategy. In Syria, DAESH terrorists control most all Syrian oilfields, where they illegally export with aid of Erdogan’s family to world markets to finance their terror campaign against Assad’s regime.

An ominous wire report sent a shiver down my spine when I read it. On January 28, US Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, said that the US military was on site at the Mosul Dam to assess “the potential” for the collapse. Were it to be blown up, it would send a flood of water down the heavily populated Tigris river valley. “The likelihood of the dam collapsing is something we are trying to determine right now… all we know is when it goes, it’s going to go fast and that’s bad,” MacFarland told reporters in Baghdad. The US State Department estimates up to 500,000 people could be killed and over one million rendered homeless should Iraq’s biggest dam collapse.

It would likely flood the large oilfields of Kirkuk on its path, rendering them inoperable. Whoever controls the Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, controls most of the country’s water and power resource. The dam holds back over 12 billion cubic meters of water that is crucial for irrigation in the farming areas of Iraq’s western Nineveh province. In a 2007 letter, US General David Petraeus, a key figure in the destruction of Iraq and in the creation of what became DAESH, warned Iraq’s government that “A catastrophic failure of Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris River all the way to Baghdad.”

Washington Proxy War Builds

Combine this statement by General MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria on that Mosul Dam, the Biden talks to get Turkey’s military invasion accepted by Iraq “in the war against DAESH” and the encouragement by State Secretary John Kerry of Prince Salman’s Saudi war against Yemen, as well as the recent Davos statements by Ash Carter. Add to that the fact that the Saudi and Turkish militaries just announced plans undertake joint military actions to “cooperate against common threats.”

On February 13, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed a joint Turkish-Saudi joint attack plan for invading Syria, telling press, “If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation.” xvi

Now add to that the fact that Turkish military began shelling a Syrian airbase and village recently retaken by Syrian Kurds, with the argument that the Kurds of Syria were “terrorists” like the Turkish PKK Kurds. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu confirmed the cross-border mortar shelling into Syria territory on February 13: “We will retaliate against every step (by the YPG),” he told state broadcaster TRT Haber. “The YPG will immediately withdraw from Azaz and the surrounding area and will not go close to itagain.”

Now add the fact that this week Washington repeated that it does not regard the Syrian Kurds as terrorists and that the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) have just opened its first foreign representative office in Moscow and we begin to see the outlines of Washington’s strategy of steering heated-up and hated-up Turkey and Saudi Arabia to trigger Washington’s surrogate war, a war where Turkey, a NATO member, Saudi and the Gulf Arab oil states, find themselves in a direct military confrontation with Russia in Aleppo province of Syria. The Turkish shelling at present is clearly a testing of the waters of a war with Russia to see how, in the wake of their ceasefire agreement, they will react. Will Russia retaliate by hitting Turkish military targets, in a NATO country?

Combine all that with the quiet but strategic Pentagon deployments inside Syria and Iraq with “boots on the ground,” and we have the combination for an explosion across the oilfields of the entire Middle East that would rock the world. Truly, as the old Greek saying goes, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

I can imagine a disgusted world turning on those American Patriarchs and their proxy partners in war, telling them, to use the words of the great Freddy Mercury song, the one about rocking certain people.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

One of the most astonishing news stories I have read of late appeared in Business Insider at the beginning of February entitled “ ‘ The Russians are going to have a cow’: the U.S.’s message to Putin ‘is a really big deal.’” The article described how the Barack Obama Administration has decided to build up “its military presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to deter Russian aggression in the region.” The “cow” and “big deal” verbal effusions were attributed to Evelyn Farkas, who, until recently was the Pentagon’s “top policy official on Russia and Ukraine.” Farkas, for what it’s worth, is of Hungarian descent and has made a career out of being suspicious of Russia. She has the usual credentials in academia so admired by the Obamaites and has served in host of government bubbles but never been in the military. As is all too often the case she and her peers will not be wearing the boots on the ground if the United States goes to war over giving Moscow a “cow.”

According to the article, the U.S. will quadruple its military spending in Europe up to $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2017. The extra money will provide heavy weapons and armored vehicles, including tanks, to America’s Eastern European associates in NATO and also to non-allies including Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Unlike previous assistance to Ukraine, the new weapons are both lethal and capable of being used offensively. The United States has also committed itself to bolstering its own presence in former Warsaw Pact states to include Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic Republics through an increase in bi- and multi- lateral training exercises in those countries. American soldiers will be eye-to-eye with those of Russia in a confrontation not seen since the Cold War ended.

The article cites Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who claims that “Russia is of course trying to leverage the entire intervention [in Syria] as a way to lap up as much real estate in the Middle East as possible.” The FDD is, of course, a neocon outfit, which is not noted in the article, and the implausible suggestion that Moscow wants to obtain “real estate” in the Middle East which would be an enormous burden and liability is given a pass without even the slightest editorial objection or contrary comment.

The article also quotes an anonymous senior administration official who explains that the more aggressive approach “reflects a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor,” referring again to Syria and also to Ukraine. Well, maybe so if one reads the New York Post or watches a steady diet of Fox news it would be possible to come to that conclusion, but there are other issues at play, including genuine western threats on Russia’s own doorstep combined with the inability of a financial stretched Russia to engage in imperial ventures anywhere.

Moscow is in Syria because the rise of a new Islamic militancy close to its own heavily Muslim federate states in the Caucasus is a definite threat. It did not initiate the crisis in that region which was instead the fault of Washington due to its ill-advised 2003 invasion of Iraq, creating a power vacuum and empowering terrorist groups seeking to take advantage of the chaos.

Nor did Moscow initiate the political crisis in Ukraine, which was also enabled by the United States. Russia admittedly subsequently annexed Crimea, which is a vital strategic interest as it includes Moscow’s major warm water naval base, but it can hardly be seen as a move motivated by desire to be expansionistic. Crimea was, in fact, Russian territory for over two hundred years before it was administratively ceded to Ukraine by the old Soviet Union in 1954 so it is not as if there was no legitimate claim to the area when Ukraine turned hostile to Moscow egged on by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and others.

Moscow is guilty of not playing by America’s rules. As former senior CIA officer Graham Fuller puts it

“…today, although neocons in Washington will disagree, it is hard to build a credible case that Russia—under Putin or any likely leader—is gearing up to invade Eastern much less Western Europe. But yes, Russia is determined to maintain regional sway—as other great powers do in their backyards, especially when distant powers intrude.”

Simplistic analysis that leads to a preordained conclusion contrary to what Fuller has cogently observed is expected in the mainstream media but the foreign policy consensus promoted by Washington is striking in terms of its internal contradictions. Indeed, if anyone at this late date really needed any evidence that the United States government is staffed by lunatics this article about delivering cows should have been enough to change the mind of even the most stalwart advocate of the progressive nirvana launched by the pledge of “Change We Can Believe In.”

Frequenters of this site are no doubt already aware that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the western powers, most notably the United States, pledged not to take advantage of the situation by initiating a military expansion into Eastern Europe, which Russia would have to correctly perceive as threatening given its own vulnerability at that time. The dauntless globalist Bill Clinton broke that promise, enabling the 1999 accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic followed by the addition of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia and Slovenia in 2004. Russia protested but did otherwise not react.

In 2008, Georgia, bolstered by pledges of support from neocons in the U.S. as well as from demented Senators like John McCain, fought Russian troops over two disputed enclaves South Ossetia and Abkhazia. McCain was led to declare that “We are all Georgians now” but a cease fire was quickly arranged by France and Russia withdrew its soldiers. Fortunately, most Americans did not see that fighting Russia over Georgia was much of a priority and the U.S. avoided another foreign policy disaster, but more was to come in Ukraine starting in late 2013.

Ukraine was deliberately destabilized by Washington by way of the infusion of $5 billion supporting “democracy building.” Again the cry went up that “we are all Ukrainians.” The second time around worked out better for the hawks and the Ukrainian cause has been surfacing in the presidential debates. Hopefully it will eventually go the way of the manufactured Georgian crisis.

It might also be noted that it is just possible that Washington is seeking to repeat its destruction of the Soviet Union by outspending Moscow in hopes that President Vladimir Putin will seek to compete and bankrupt his country. If that is so, the crafty Putin is unlikely to take the bait and it is more than likely that the net result will be the U.S. going even deeper in debt for no purpose whatsoever, reminiscent of any number of foreign policy failures over the past fifteen years. And meanwhile the wealthy European countries will breathe a sigh of relief as Washington again rides to the rescue in defending the continent from the Red Menace.

What Farkas and company fail to see is that the United States might well have some outstanding issues with Vladimir Putin’s Russia but Moscow does not pose a threat to the U.S. On the contrary, it is Washington that poses a threat to Russia and any number of other countries through its presumption that it has a right to intervene in the affairs of other nations whenever it is so inclined. Moscow is neither able nor disposed towards become an enemy unless it is backed into a corner and something goes nuclear. That would, incidentally, destroy the United States so where is the frisson of excitement in Russia being presented with a “cow?” Beats me.