Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:07 am

Looks like Trump meant what he said about keeping the oil.

Tillerson: US Troops Will Stay in Iraq After ISIS Is Defeated

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/22/till ... -defeated/


Iraqi Popular Forces Warn They Will Target US Forces If They Don’t Leave Iraq after Defeat of ISIS

http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraqi-popu ... is/5581215

Spokesman and a senior commander of Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Battalions) popular forces Jafar al-Hosseini warned that the group will target the US forces if they don’t leave the Iraqi territories after annihilation of the ISIL terrorists.

“If the US forces refrain from leaving the Iraqi territories after annihilation of the ISIL terrorist group, the Islamic resistance of Iraq will target them,” al-Hosseini told the Islamic republic news agency on Tuesday.

Noting that the US forces are protecting rather than fighting against the ISIL terrorists in Iraq, he said that the Americans have increased their activities in Iraq in recent days through their military advisors the number of their flights and want to open some space for themselves in the anti-ISIL campaign to be able to render more support to the terrorist group.

Al-Hosseini described the ISIL and the US as two sides of the same coin, and said the Americans’ presence in Mosul is not aimed at uprooting ISIL as they plan to make sure of their deployment in the region after expulsion of the ISIL.

He said that the ISIL has been created and nurtured by the US, and added that Washington wants to fool the world again and introduce itself as a partner in the anti-ISIL war.

His remarks came after a senior Hashd al-Shaabi (Iraqi volunteer forces) commander disclosed that the US troops have helped ISIL chief commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi escape the western part of the city of Mosul in Northern Iraq.

“The US forces have paved the way for ISIL leader (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) to flee from Western Mosul to al-Qayravan region,” the Arabic-language al-Sumeria TV quoted Javad al-Tayebavi as saying earlier this month.

“Our intelligence unit has confirmed that al-Baghdadi is moving between al-Qayravan and al-Hazar region in Southern Mosul,” he added.
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:07 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote:'The senator from Kentucky is now working for Putin': John McCain slams Rand Paul for blocking Montenegro from joining NATO


ICYMI:



LOL @ McCain trying to discourage Rand's objection & rush this through.

Image



The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of the treaty with Montenegro on Jan. 11. The panel's chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), predicts at least 98 senators will vote in favor. “We’re trying to figure out how to make it happen," Corker told POLITICO. "It will pass 98-2 or 99-1, but getting it on the floor right now is difficult.”

Russia hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) worry “a great deal” that Russia will try to destabilize Montenegro before it becomes a full NATO member and has become one of the loudest voices pushing for a full Senate vote as soon as possible.

"We’re doing everything we can to get that up, I promise you.” he said. “I want to send a clear signal to our friends in Montenegro and to the Russians about how we feel, so I hope we can vote quickly,” added Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “The sooner the better.”

Advocates for delay include Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has raised concerns about the United States committing to defend another country in which Russia has a strong interest. He blocked a Senate attempt to vote on the treaty in December.

“I think that many are referring to this as a provocation to Russia, and also, I think NATO is too big already," Paul told POLITICO. "I think we should think long and hard if whether or not we are willing to go to war if Montenegro has a skirmish with somebody that surrounds them. Ultimately, joining NATO is not necessarily a benign thing.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:50 pm

I know you'll dig this one Mega...

while Trump increases drone strikes, continues to arm the FSA, deploys troops to Iraq & saber rattles the Middle & Far East...

Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act Introduced in Senate
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/gabbards-stop-arming-terrorists-act-introduced-senate

Image
Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Rand Paul. The bipartisan legislation (H.R.608 and S.532) would prohibit any Federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it will prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries who are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.

The legislation is currently cosponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Scott Perry (R-PA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tom Garrett (R-VA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Ted Yoho (R-FL), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), Veterans for Peace, and the U.S. Peace Council.

“For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East, we should be focused on defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and using our resources to invest in rebuilding our communities here at home,” said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. “The fact that American taxpayer dollars are being used to strengthen the very terrorist groups we should be focused on defeating should alarm every Member of Congress and every American. We call on our colleagues and the Administration to join us in passing this legislation.”

Image

“One of the unintended consequences of nation-building and open-ended intervention is American funds and weapons benefiting those who hate us,” said Dr. Rand Paul. “This legislation will strengthen our foreign policy, enhance our national security, and safeguard our resources.”

Background: The Stop Arming Terrorists Act prohibits U.S. government funds from being used to support al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. In the same way that Congress passed the Boland Amendment to prohibit the funding and support to CIA backed-Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980’s, this bill would stop CIA or other Federal government activities in places like Syria by ensuring U.S. funds are not used to support al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ISIS, or other terrorist groups working with them. It would also prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups. The bill achieves this by:

** Making it illegal for any U.S. Federal government funds to be used to provide assistance covered in this bill to terrorists. The assistance covered includes weapons, munitions, weapons platforms, intelligence, logistics, training, and cash.

** Making it illegal for the U.S. government to provide assistance covered in the bill to any nation that has given or continues to give such assistance to terrorists.

** Requiring the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to determine the individual and groups that should be considered terrorists, for the purposes of this bill, by determining: (a) the individuals and groups that are associated with, affiliated with, adherents to or cooperating with al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or ISIS; (b) the countries that are providing assistance covered in this bill to those individuals or groups.

** Requiring the DNI to review and update the list of countries and groups to which assistance is prohibited every six months, in consultation with the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, as well as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

** Requiring the DNI to brief Congress on the determinations.



Image



FLASHBACK to '99: what's the definition of insanity?



It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get?

Osama Bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with it.

So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I mean, the whole thing is absurd. There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war.
.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:15 pm

re: my earlier concern about Trump's Reagan-esque deference to his VP & the MIC/CIA...

Image

Trump gives CIA power to launch drone strikes: report
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/323808-trump-gives-cia-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-report

The CIA has reportedly been given the power by President Trump to launch drone strikes against suspected terrorists.

The new authority is a change in drone policy from the Obama administration, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday, citing U.S. officials. Under the Obama administration, the CIA used drones to find suspected terrorists. But the military then launched the strikes. That policy created more transparency, because the Pentagon is required to publicly report most airstrikes.

The CIA's new authority, which was reportedly provided by Trump shortly after his inauguration, was used in February in a strike against a senior al Qaeda leader in Syria, Abu al-Khayr al-Masri. Spokesmen for the Pentagon and CIA declined to comment to The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. officials said that the new authority under Trump is only for the CIA's operations in Syria. But according to The Wall Street Journal, the CIA may be able to conduct drone strikes in other areas as well.

“There are a lot of problems with the drone program and the targeted killing program, but the CIA should be out of the business of ordering lethal strikes,” said Christopher Anders, deputy director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.


Trump (& Pompeo) recently named Gina Haspel deputy director of the CIA:

Haspel ran a "black site" CIA prison located in Thailand in 2002. The site was codenamed "Cat’s Eye" and held suspected al Qaeda members Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah for a time. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture specifies that during their detention at the site they were waterboarded and interrogated using no longer authorized methods. Declassified CIA cables specify that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a month, was sleep deprived, kept in a "large box", had his head slammed against a wall and he lost his left eye. Zubaydah was deemed, by the CIA interrogators, to not be in possession of any useful intelligence (Interrogation of Abu Zubaydah).

Haspel later was the chief of staff to Jose Rodriguez, who headed the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. In his memoir, Rodriguez wrote that Haspel had "drafted a cable" in 2005 ordering the destruction of dozens of videotapes made at the black site in Thailand.

In 2013, John Brennan, then the director of Central Intelligence, named Haspel as acting Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service, which carries out covert operations around the globe. However, she was denied the position permanently due to criticism about her involvement in the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program. Haspel as also served as the Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action.

Haspel is the recipient of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, the Donovan Award, the Intelligence Medal of Merit and the Presidential Rank Award.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel


(not) coincidentally?... Draft executive order on CIA ‘black sites’ renews questions about Trump’s torture policy
https://www.rt.com/usa/375101-draft-executive-order-trump-cia-torture/

Wikileaked PDF: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3415371/Read-the-draft-of-the-executive-order-on-CIA.pdf

President Donald Trump’s openness to waterboarding and torture of terrorist suspects could lead to the review and ultimate reopening of CIA interrogation programs used in secret “black sites” worldwide, if a leaked executive order draft is any indication.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that a copy of a draft executive order distributed to major media outlets including the New York Times and Associated Press on Wednesday “is not a White House document.”

There are conflicting reports on the draft’s merit. Reuters cited two US officials who said Trump would sign a similar executive order in the coming days, while Fox News cited “White House sources” downplaying the draft, saying it was just one of many written during the transition.


CIA awards Saudi prince medal for anti-terror efforts
https://www.rt.com/usa/377087-cia-awards-saudi-antiterrorism/

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, Saudi Arabia’s deputy premier and interior minister, has been presented with a CIA award for his work fighting terrorism, prompting raised eyebrows on social media. CIA Director Mike Pompeo gifted the prince with the George Tenet award in Riyadh on Friday.

Image

Defense Secretary Seeks Deeper US Involvement in Yemen War
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/26/defense-secretary-seeks-deeper-us-involvement-in-yemen-war/

Defense Secretary James Mattis is said to be pushing for the White House to remove all restrictions, placed during the waning months of President Obama’s presidency, on US military support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen, seeking deeper direct US involvement in fighting the Yemeni Shi’ites.

Trump Shifting Authority Over Military Operations Back to Pentagon
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/us/trump-shifting-authority-over-military-operations-back-to-pentagon.html?_r=0

The new approach to managing military operations was evident this month when a Marine artillery battery and a team of Army Rangers — some 400 troops in all — arrived in northern Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signed off on the deployments and notified the White House. But General McMaster neither convened a meeting at the White House to discuss whether to send the forces nor presented the Pentagon with questions about where, precisely, the troops would operate or what risks they might confront.

Though the streamlined decision-making has been welcomed by many in the military, it could raise questions about whether Mr. Trump, who has drawn heavily from current and former generals to fill key jobs in his administration, is exercising sufficient oversight.

Donald Trump Is Filling Top Pentagon and Homeland Security Positions With Defense Contractors
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/21/revolving-door-military/

President Donald Trump has weaponized the revolving door by appointing defense contractors and their lobbyists to key government positions as he seeks to rapidly expand the military budget and homeland security programs.


Image

Is this what Trump supporters were voting for? KEK.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:35 pm

the "long war on terror"



Across the globe, there is not a single "hot spot" where the Trump Administration is not escalating conflict. Drone strikes are up over 400 percent. Civilian deaths are skyrocketing in Iraq and Syria after stepped-up US bombardment. The Pentagon says it needs thousands more troops for Afghanistan and more military participation in the horrible war on Yemen. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in South Korea that "all options are on the table" with regards to North Korea, which suggests even a first-strike nuclear weapon is "on the table." More artillery is being moved to Russia's border. By increasing US military involvement in every single area of tension is the President working to make us safer, or are we one accident away from a major, possibly world, war?


Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:25 pm

not hiding it anymore, Trump goes FULL ESTABLISHMENT.

Trump, Ryan go public with fight against Freedom Caucus, Rep. Amash
http://fox17online.com/2017/03/30/trump-ryan-go-public-with-fight-against-freedom-caucus-rep-amash/

Image

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have gone public with their war against the House Freedom Caucus, a week after the GOP health care bill crashed amid partisan infighting.

Trump appeared to target conservative House members within his own party in a tweet Thursday morning that told his supporters “we must fight” the House Freedom Caucus as well as Democrats next year.

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” Trump tweeted.

The President is using the power of his bully pulpit to try and force the Freedom Caucus to work with him on his agenda rather than be against it.

An impasse between House moderates and Freedom Caucus members led to the pulling of a bill last week to replace Obamacare that was supported by GOP leaders and the President. The White House accused the conservative group of moving the goalposts during negotiations and Trump has called out the group publicly over the weekend as well.

Trump’s message wasn’t subtle — nor was it random.

It came shortly after Ryan made clear in an interview on “CBS This Morning” that if his party can’t unify, Trump will likely turn toward Democrats for future legislative deals.

Speaking to reporters later Thursday, Ryan amplified Trump’s comments.

“I understand the frustration,” Ryan said. “I share the frustration.”

Ryan repeated that “90%” of his caucus is for the health care measure, but would not commit to a timeline on holding another vote.

In tandem, the messages form a dual-pronged campaign to try and emphasize — and raise the stakes — of the risks of remaining a divided party, according to sources familiar with the effort.

As the health care debate reached its final days, and in the wake of its failure, Trump and Ryan have settled into an exceedingly close relationship that has included multiple calls a day between the two men. The dynamics of the House GOP conference — and how to try and bring it together — have been a repeated topic of conversation.

The idea that Trump could turn away from his own party at this stage is, to a degree, theater designed to spook the far-right of the party into line. It was a message echoed by Trump administration officials the weekend after the health care failure and repeated Thursday by Ryan, multiple people involved say.

Trump’s tweets, showing an increasingly aggressive and hard-edged view of the Freedom Caucus, represent his own unfiltered take on a group that is viewed inside the White House as threatening ambitious agenda

For the moment, there’s limited evidence that real work towards wrangling Democrats for Trump’s agenda is taking place and even less evidence enough Democrats exist to make any effort along those lines worthwhile.

But, sources say, it’s a threat that could eventually ring true if the Freedom Caucus doesn’t change its tune. After all, the President is not particularly tied into conservative orthodoxy. So while the most recent comments fit into a loosely designed deliberate campaign of sorts now, there’s no question it could become very real if Trump decides it’s the only way to strike any kind of deal.

Asked by CNN to clarify whether Trump is calling for Freedom Caucus members to face primary challenges in 2018, deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders responded: “The President’s tweet speaks for itself.”

Freedom Caucus member Rep. Justin Amash said Trump has surrendered to the Washington swamp he promised to fight.

“It didn’t take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump. No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment,” the Michigan Republican, tweeted.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, uncharacteristically declined to weigh in on Trump’s tweet.

“I don’t have anything to say at this point. No comment,” he told CNN. “No comment. I try to always be accessible, but no comment.”

Rep. Dave Brat, a Freedom Caucus member from Virginia, told reporters that he’s not going to weigh into drama.

“I don’t get involved in any of that drama business,” he said.

He maintains members had and “artificial time line” of three weeks to digest a major part of the economy, and he’s still committed to repealing more regulations than the House bill did.

Will primary against Freedom Caucus members help Trump?

Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a Tennessee Republican, was an early supporter of Trump and he said he still has a good relationship with the White House and that getting him out of office might only be worse for Republicans trying to move legislation through.

“In my district, we’re very conservative so If he gets me out of office, he’s going to get someone more conservative than me,” DesJarlais said.

“I think what happened needed to happen,” he added. “We were pressured under what looked to be a bad deal, we walked away, and now cooler heads are prevailing. We’re discussing this the way we should without a deadline, and we’ll bring it back when its right.”

DesJarlais said he’s not worried about Trump’s Twitter account.

“I know what my relationship with the White House is with Tom Price is, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pence and Donald Trump so I am not gonna get all hung up about a tweet,” he said.


By attacking the House Freedom Caucus, Donald Trump has gone full establishment
http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-liberty/conservatism-today/by-attacking-the-house-freedom-caucus-donald-trump-has-gone-full-establishment/

We were supposed to support Trump because he was the guy who was finally going to break the corrupt Republican ‘establishment.’ Now he’s the guy launching tweet-storms on behalf of the establishment and against the House Freedom Caucus—the guys who actually did break the GOP establishment.


Image

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:06 am

Al Qaeda Rebranding Serves US Agenda

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2017/0 ... .html#more

The RAND Corporation's recent piece titled, "Al Qaeda in Syria Can Change Its Name, but Not Its Stripes," all but admits what was already suspected about designated terrorist groups operating in Syria - that they are undergoing a transition in an attempt by their state sponsors to bolster their legitimacy and spare them from liquidation amid the shifting tides on the battlefield.

The piece, written by Colin Clarke described by the RAND Corporation as a "political scientist at the RAND Corporation and an associate fellow at the International Center for Counter Terrorism," states:

Following recent infighting with other Syrian rebel groups in the northwestern part of the country, al Qaeda in Syria appears to have recognized the need to secure legitimacy and present itself to the civilian population it seeks to influence as an authentically Syrian entity.

However, this is not simply Al Qaeda's objective - this is the objective of the United States itself as well as the Persian Gulf states it funnels money and arms through, fueling Syria's destructive conflict since 2011.

Clarke continues by stating:

The most likely scenario is that the change in nomenclature is merely an attempt to buy time and live to fight another day. Indeed, the rebranding has done nothing to slow down the group's operations tempo of conducting attacks.

And concludes by claiming:

Six years into the conflict in Syria, al Qaeda's presence in the country has never been stronger. And while most dismiss the notion of al Qaeda as a political entity in Syria, the same was said 30 years ago about Hezbollah — the Shia group that now holds seats in Lebanon's parliament and maintains a vast military wing. If jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda in Syria can succeed in rebranding themselves, they can take steps toward positioning themselves as political players if or when negotiations to end the civil war in Syria gain traction.

Clarke notes that militant groups fighting in Syria - being associated with Al Qaeda - has greatly complicated efforts by the US and its collaborators to fund, arm, and otherwise support their efforts in executing regime change against Damascus.

Hopes of playing a rhetorical shell game that is long and complicated enough to confuse the general public and produce a front ambiguous enough for the West and its regional partners to more directly and widely support is essential. While the overthrow of the Syrian government looks all but impossible at the moment, the US, Turkey, and various Persian Gulf states appear to be maneuvering to annex territory and place it under the control of these "rebranded" terrorist groups.

As previously noted, across the entirety of the Western media, there is a concerted effort to provide cover for what is the preservation of proxy groups fighting in Syriaas the conflict draws to an end. Explaining away how these groups will find themselves protected safe havens abroad, or rehabilitate themselves into legitimate political fronts is merely the latest in a long line of ploys Western policymakers have used to pose as fighting terrorist organizations while simultaneously serving as their exclusive state sponsors.

In reality, however "reasonable" the West's repetitive talking points may seem, the prospect of a "legitimate" political front composed of Al Qaeda terrorists is only a possibility if the United States and its regional allies provide it recognition. The prospect of Syria, Russia, Iran or other states outside Washington's sphere of influence recognizing the legitimacy of such an entity is unlikely.

However, considering the immense amount of resources provided to these terrorist organizations since their inception back in the 1980s by the West and its allies, the continuation of this support into the realm of political fronts seems all but inevitable.. Yet the crisis of credibility the West has suffered as its project in Syria drags on will only expand if and when such a political front is established and lent legitimacy by the West and its allies.


It is ironic that while RAND cites Hezbollah as an example America's future Al Qaeda political front may follow, Hezbollah remains a designated terrorist group by the US State Department - despite the fact that the organization serves as one of the primary fronts waging war against both Al Qaeda and its spin-off, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State."

Geopolitically, the United States has painted itself into a corner where all options are bad options. Its various political ploys are now standing in direct contradiction of one another. The West has placed Islamophobic demagogues into office to further divide and distract their populations while the very governments these politicians pose as leading help establish a political front for Al Qaeda after having provided years of military, financial, and political aid to the terrorist organization on battlefields stretching from Libya to Syria and beyond.

Reading supposedly serious US policymakers and analysts attempting to claim an Al Qaeda-led political front holds any prospect of establishing legitimacy, after nearly two-decades of a so-called "War on Terror," is particularly surreal. For many, it serves to truly illustrate what terrorism actually is and how it fits into the geopolitical skill-set used by the United States in its pursuit of global hegemony. While the US has paid a high price for its failure in Syria in many regards, perhaps the exposure of its use of terrorism and the double game it has played - posing as enemy against while serving as sponsor for terrorist fronts like Al Qaeda - has cost it the most thus far.
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:05 pm

Kissinger is the dark side of Trump in Syria
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/07/kissinger-dark-side-trump-syria

Image

“I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”

Those were Hillary Clinton’s words just hours before her nemesis, President Donald Trump, ordered air strikes launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat airfield in the southeast of Homs, Syria.

Escalation

The Trump administration described the strikes as a “one-off” and insisted there were no plans for escalation. But an escalation is rapidly underway. Russia, despite being given advanced warning of the bombing from the US, has suspended an agreement with the US to avoid mid-air collisions in Syrian airspace.

The US government’s goals for the Syria strike can be deduced from the background role of one the most powerful diplomats in American history: Henry Kissinger. The former secretary of state, once accused by the late Christopher Hitchens of complicity in US “war crimes” in Latin America and south-east Asia, has been a key advisor to Trump in negotiating US relations with Russia and China.

Kissinger was previously a secret national security consultant to President George W Bush, and under Obama was directly involved in the US National Security Council’s chain-of-command. He also frequently advised Hillary Clinton during her term as secretary of state.

His influence in the Trump administration is also visible through his former acolyte, KT McFarland, who is now Trump’s deputy national security advisor, and who previously served under Kissinger in the 1970s in his National Security Council.

Image

Chaos as strategy?

The sudden Syria air strikes fit into the philosophy of “unpredictability” - or Madman Theory - that Kissinger has long argued is a hallmark of the greatest statesmen. Kissinger’s approach is for US administrations to avoid the recommended caution of experts, instead opting for “the constant redefinition of goals” and “the strength to contemplate chaos”.

By behaving erratically, and even seemingly “irrationally”, US leaders can outmanoeuvre their opponents and rivals, and put them permanently on the backfoot in fear of the dangerous volatility of American power.

This is why Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was able to move from claiming that “steps are underway” to remove Bashar al-Assad from power, to now insisting that the US is not planning further actions.

“I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today,” he said.

The upshot appears to be: this was a one-off strike designed to send a clear message to US rivals, that the US is able and willing to deploy military power without fear of consequences. And that past commitments to Assad are no guarantee.

Cauldronisation

The deeper goal is to clear the ground for the Trump administration to pursue its strategic ambitions in Syria. Those ambitions can be gleaned from the thinking of its key advisors.

"We're seeing an administration making decisions on the basis of competing ideologies, one of which naively sees the escalation of chaos in countries like Syria as a strategic opportunity."

Before he resigned in disgrace over allegations of dishonesty regarding his contact with the Russian ambassador, Trump’s national security advisor Michael Flynn had just co-authored a book, The Field of Fight, with neoconservative defence consultant Michael Ledeen.

The significance of this is that Ledeen was directly involved with the Yellowcake forgeries attempting to fabricate a weapons of mass destruction threat to justify the 2003 Iraq War; has long campaigned for military interventions in Syria, Iran and beyond; and has articulated a foreign policy vision that was deeply influential in the George W Bush administration.

Ledeen’s vision for the region can be summed up with his endorsement of the "cauldronisation" of the Middle East in 2002, when he wrote in support of invading Iraq: “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronised, it is the Middle East today.”

This sort of vision correlates with the Trump administration’s preference for chaos, backtracking and constant shifting of priorities. To be sure, much of this can also be attributed to real confusion and overwhelming incompetence. No one should underestimate that.

But simultaneously, we’re seeing an administration making decisions on the basis of competing ideologies, one of which naively sees the escalation of chaos in countries like Syria as a strategic opportunity.

Image

Assad is not being removed

It would seem, though, that the strategic purpose of the strikes is not, ultimately, to begin the removal of Assad. Syrian rebels - some of whom have fought alongside al-Qaeda, some of whom vehemently oppose both IS and al-Qaeda, and many of whom nevertheless want to replace Assad’s regime with their own type of Islamic state - have welcomed the strikes.

But they also rightly point out that simply hitting one airbase achieves little, given that Assad launches domestic air strikes from at least 26 airbases.

A hint at what is really at stake comes from talks that have gone on between the Netanyahu and Trump administration during the last few weeks before the strikes. For Israel, the real "red line" in Syria is not about chemical weapons – it’s about Iran and Hezbollah’s potential encroachment, through Assad’s regime, on the Syrian-Israel border in the Golan Heights, or the Syrian-Jordanian border.

Sources familiar with the talks told Ha’aretz that Netanyahu wants “buffer zones” established on the Syrian side of the border. The plan also would entail that Syria’s Golan Heights be de facto partitioned off from Syria to Israel.

It so happens that the Israeli subsidiary of a US energy company, Genie Oil & Gas, is currently drilling for oil in the Golan Heights under a license from Netanyahu’s government. Among Genie’s equity-holding board members are Rupert Murdoch, who has astonishingly intimate ties with the Trump family, business empire, and administration.

Playing with fire

This vision does not see Assad’s removal as the answer, but seeks merely to limit his territorial power to a small enclave concentrated in Damascus, and further to break-off the scope of Russian and Iranian support for his regime. Simultaneously, the Trump regime wants to use the Syria strikes as the first step in a strategy to enforce a wedge between Russia and Iran.

"The Kissinger-esque tactic of 'playing with fire' to get what you want doesn’t work. Instead, it tends to make things spiral out of control."

By gifting to Russia the Crimea in one theatre, Trump’s government wants to convince Russia in a different theatre to back off its alliance with Iran in Syria, allowing the US a greater playing field to impose a diplomatic settlement that suits its own dubious geopolitical goals for the region.

The end result of this, though, is to maintain a state of permanent instability in Syria, where no particular faction wins: the US is at once tolerating Assad, threatening regime change, selectively targeting his regime but not taking actions that would actually remove him; allowing Gulf allies to continue supporting Syrian rebels of their choice, ranging from secular groups to Islamist militants, some with connections to IS and al-Qaeda; and carrying out air strikes on IS.

US actions to date will neither defeat IS, nor Assad. Instead, they will prolong the war, while attempting to contain it: an approach that is destined to defeat itself.

The problem is that the Kissinger-esque tactic of "playing with fire" to get what you want doesn’t work. Instead, it tends to make things spiral out of control.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:15 pm

Donald Trump to Pick Fox Analyst KT McFarland for Deputy National Security Adviser
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/25/donald-trump-picks-fox-analyst-k-t-mcfarland-deputy-national-security-adviser/

McFarland, a former spokeswoman in the Pentagon during the Reagan era, lives in New York and currently serves as a Fox News National Security Analyst. She also served in the Nixon and Ford administrations and was an aide to Dr. Henry Kissinger, according to her Fox News profile.


Kissinger's Washington Is Coming Back Around
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-04/kissinger-s-washington-is-coming-back-around

Image

Let’s take a moment to savor what looks to be Henry Kissinger’s final act. The man is 93 years old. At that age, most people are lucky to have enough energy for “Wheel of Fortune” and a few Facebook posts. Not Kissinger. These days, he’s playing the influence game against insiders who hadn’t even been born when he was Richard Nixon’s secretary of state.

Officials with Donald Trump’s transition team tell me Kissinger has spent several hours since the election advising incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn and his team. He’s also putting his network in place. He recommended his former assistant, K.T. McFarland, to be Flynn’s deputy, and urged Trump to nominate Rex Tillerson, the chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil, as his secretary of state. Kissinger is one of the few people in Trump’s orbit who can get him on the phone whenever he wants, according to one transition adviser.

That’s just behind the scenes. Consider that Kissinger is also an important validator for Trump in the press. When some Republicans questioned Tillerson’s closeness to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kissinger defended the pick on “Face the Nation.” Kissinger helped soften the blow of Trump’s phone call with Taiwan’s president in December before the Committee of 100, which advocates for the U.S.-China relationship. Before that, Kissinger winged his way to Oslo to urge his fellow Nobel laureates to give the next president’s foreign policy a chance. It feels like 1975 all over again. I’m half-expecting to read something in the tabloids about a Kissinger affair with a Hollywood starlet.

It should be said that almost all recent presidents and secretaries of state at one time or another have consulted Kissinger for advice. But in the Obama years, Kissinger was not that influential. After he co-authored an op-ed critical of the Iran nuclear deal, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf dismissed it as “big words and big thoughts” with few specifics.

It’s nonetheless strange that Kissinger would have Trump’s ear. To start, he is the author of many of the policies Trump is hinting he will undo. It’s not just the one-China policy, which forbids official recognition of Taiwan, even though it allows the U.S. to arm the island. Kissinger is also an architect of arms-control deals that recent Trump tweets suggest may be in jeopardy.

“Kissinger is apparently willing to advise someone who has publicly questioned the essential building blocks of the international system that Kissinger himself helped create,” Tim Naftali, a former executive director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, told me.

Then there’s the matter of how Trump won the presidency. Remember his closing argument: “For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people who don’t have your good in mind.” That’s not an unreasonable description of Kissinger’s own consulting firm, which has provided strategic advice to foreign governments and big corporations since 1982.

Of course, Kissinger has always contained multitudes. For his supporters, he is the American Metternich, the 19th-century Austrian diplomat and scholar who both shaped and explained the geopolitics of his era. It’s no coincidence that Metternich was a subject of Kissinger’s first book, published in 1957.

Niall Ferguson, the historian and Kissinger biographer, put it like this: “The reason Trump has turned to Kissinger is that he rightly sees him as the most brilliant and experienced geopolitical theorist and diplomatic practitioner in the United States today, and he realizes he could use Kissinger’s advice to sort out his strategic priorities.”

This is no doubt music to the ears of the Washington and New York foreign-policy establishment. For idealists on the left and right, however, Kissinger’s influence on Trump is a red flag. For all of his foreign-policy success, Kissinger is also an author of more dubious moments in Cold War history. He helped orchestrate the 1973 coup that toppled Chile’s elected president, Salvador Allende. Kissinger devised the strategy to bomb North Vietnamese Army positions in Cambodia, something he kept from Congress. This history earned Hillary Clinton a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary, when he questioned the judgment of anyone who would consider Kissinger to be a personal friend.

But Kissinger is not just a bête noire for the left. He also clashed with neoconservatives when he was Richard Nixon’s national security adviser. Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson pushed the Nixon administration to adopt sanctions on the Soviet Union tied directly to its treatment of Jewish dissidents. Kissinger famously opposed this policy because it would undermine his own policy to lower tensions with Moscow, known as detente.

As Trump prepares to take power, Russia is once again dividing Washington. The Obama administration just last week released a report from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security that concluded Russian intelligence services hacked leading Democrats and leaked the information to the press. Trump and his transition team have cast doubt on the intelligence.

Kissinger hasn’t weighed in on that. But he has been saying for the past few years that it would be smart to find ways to work more closely with Putin. In a speech in February at the Gorchakov Foundation in Moscow, he said, “In the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States.”

This perspective meshes nicely with Trump’s own view that a deal can be done with Putin. Ferguson told me that one of the appeals of Kissinger for Trump is that voters were fed up with the approaches of George W. Bush and Barack Obama to foreign policy. “Kissinger was associated with neither approach, though he was much less openly critical of the former,” he said. “I think Trump is attracted to Kissinger’s reputation as a realist, though -- as I have argued -- this is rather an inaccurate characterization of him. He surely also appreciates the unique network of relationships Kissinger brings to the table: Think only of his regular meetings with Presidents Putin and Xi.”

Delicious. The president-elect who waged a campaign against global elites is turning to a man who knows most of them on a first-name basis. It’s an irony Henry Kissinger’s former clients likely appreciate.


Image

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 352

Postby Redneck » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:25 pm

Yep, it's back to business as usual for the Neocons and the Globalists.

Trump is just following on from where Obama, and Bush before him, left off.


Image


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests