Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Deep State

News Media-Military-Industrial Complex Recommended Books Recommended Links National Security State / Surveillance State Big Uncle is Watching You  US and British media are servants of security apparatus
 Nation under attack meme Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism Trump vs. Deep State Anti Trump Hysteria Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Neoconservatism New American Militarism
Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite American Exceptionalism Corporatism Neo-fascism Inverted Totalitarism Bureaucracies Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism  The Pareto Law Amorality of neoliberal elite Casino Capitalism Ayn Rand and Objectivism Cult Pluralism as a myth What's the Matter with Kansas
Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment The importance of controlling the narrative  Patterns of Propaganda Corruption of Regulators Two Party System as polyarchy Audacioues Oligarchy and Loss of Trust
Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton - unsuccessful deep state candidate for presidency US Presidential Elections of 2016 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization Swiftboating Trump: Khan gambit against Trump at the Democratic Convention Obama: a yet another Neocon Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Robert Kagan Paul Wolfowitz
Wrecking Crew: Notes on Republican Economic Policy Libertarian Philosophy In Goldman Sachs we trust: classic example of regulatory capture by financial system hackers Groupthink Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc

Introduction


DEEP STATE n. A hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.

A Wordnado of Words in 2013 - NYTimes.com , Dec 21, 2013

"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."

President Harry Truman

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

President John_F._Kennedy, speech on April 27, 1961

In a way the concept of  Corporatism and the concept of  "deep state' are very close, almost synonyms. Corporatism presuppose the merger of government and corporations. It can be done openly as was the case in Mussolini Italy or via back door, "revolving door" mechanism as it was done in the USA. In the latter case part of power of 'surface state" is preserved.

But there are agencies that get special status under corporatism. this is so called three-letter agencies (which actually is the backbone of Media-Military-Industrial Complex). Or national security establishment. This is new unelected aristocracy with huge financial resources that stands above law and can't be easily demotes from their positions (J. Edgar Hoover  is an excellent example here).  They now are a new incarnation of "royal court", which can like in old times is able to dismiss a monarch or even kill him.

So in a way the concept of "deep state" -- hypertrophied role of three letter agencies and their brass and certain corporations (aka military industrial complex) in national politics especially in formulating foreign policy is nothing new. But devil is always in details and some features of the USA deep state are different then our analogy predicts.

First of all "surface state" is still keeping some positions and even try to counterattack deep state in certain areas. Second, the merger of interests of three letter agencies like CIA/NSA and Wall Street can never be absolute as they have different worldviews on both the USA foreign policy priorities and methods of achieving them. They only partially coincide.  Also relations between three letter agencies are far from harmonious at all with CIA ('humint") very concerned about recent rise of status and capabilities of NSA ("sigint").  So in certain areas they are more like spiders in the cage with CIA perfectly capable attacking NSA and vise versa, and that gives us some hope. 

Two party system invented by elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for inverted totalitarism type of regimes, including the US neoliberalism.  But there is second trend here which increase the elite control of the county:  this is dramatic transfer of power to institutions of "deep state", which in certain sense now like TBTF are beyond civil  control. As well as a secret alliance between Wall Street and CIA and other three letter agencies.

All those factors essentially make Presidential and Congress election in the USA truly optional, serving mostly ceremonial, decorative function. Yes elections still continue to exist and sometime provide good theater, within the strict rules of an emasculated "two parties, winner takes all" system, ehich if you think about it is not that different from one party elections in the USSR.

They still have a role in legitimizing the current rulers, although actual rules are not the same as those who were elected. This is especially true about the two recent US Presidents: George W Bush and Brack Obama.  And that explains why Barack Obama foreign policy is essentially a continuation of policy of George W Bush with minor tweaks.  Just the fact that neocon Victoria Nuland who worked for Cheney was promoted to the key role of the  Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs  tells that Obama controls very little in foreign policy area and that 'deep state" is functioning autonomously and without control of "surface state".

The USA political system does not have a single government. It actually has two distinct governments. They are called "surface state" or Madisonians and "deep state" or Trumanites (national security establishment in alliance with selected members of financial oligarchy, media owners and technocrats). The latter term emerged because it was Harry Truman who signed National Security Act of 1947  which created major three letter agencies (CIA, DOD, FBI and NSA).

Simplifying the complex relation between those two US governments (sometimes Madisonians fight back and have Trumanites to make a temporary retreat) we can say that:

Conversion of system of governance to "deep state" which happened in the USA almost immediately after 1947 essentially made elections optional, but they still continue to exist as a ceremonial function for the sake of providing the legitimacy in an emasculated "two parties system" form.  While relationship is more complex then simple dominance, in essence "deep state" is the tail that wag the dog. And JFK assassination (Nov 22, 1963)  meant first of all the triumph of "deep state" over "surface state". In this sense 9/11 was just the last nail in the coffin of democracy.

The term “Deep State” was coined in Turkey (and actually Wikipedia discusses only it) but it is widespread modern phenomenon which can also be found in most other states. The term means a shadow alliance of elements of government. security services, selected top-level figures of financial oligarchy, media and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process. As any elite dominance project it is deeply anti-democratic although it uses fig leaf of democracy for foreign expansion via color revolutions and wars. 

Like in Third Reich this dominance is supported by relentless propaganda and brainwashing with mechanisms polished since Reagan to perfection. There is now no problem to create an "enemy of the people" when the elite wants and it does not matter which country or individual is selected as an enemy. The essence of elite politics in this area was best formulated by Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

In other words this is a hidden set of political actors and powerful institutions that are concealed within the wider, “visible” state which, essentially, took over the functions of traditional state, leaving such organization of Executive branch, President, congress and courts mainly ceremonial role. Such transformation is well explained by the The Iron Law of Oligarchy and in various forms happened in Third Reich, the USSR, Turkey, China and many other countries.

Mike Lofgren: the “deep state” is the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment

Here is how The American Conservative covers this topic:

Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the “deep state” — the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment — is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

Excerpts:

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
 

More:

Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice — certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus’ expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it’s a vital part of the Deep State’s apparatus. More:

The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to “live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face.”

Read the whole thing.  Steve Sailer says that the Shallow State is a complement to the Deep State. The Shallow State is, I think, another name for what the Neoreactionaries call “The Cathedral,” defined thus:

The Cathedral — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women’s suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that “you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that’s left is to work out the details.” Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

You don’t have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn — women’s suffrage? desegregation? labor laws? really?? — to acknowledge that they’re onto something about the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I’d be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I’m only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn’t a conspiracy; it’s in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called “groupthink,” the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town’s cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it’s 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one’s consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: “You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?” No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one’s surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn’t know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It’s probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites — political, military, financial — were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

Anyway, that’s just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here’s a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

MIKE LOFGREN: It’s an ideology. I just don’t think we’ve named it. It’s a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it’s our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

This can’t last. We’d better hope it can’t last. And we’d better hope it unwinds peacefully.

I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses — and it will one day — it’s not going to be a happy time.

Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?

Professor Michael J. Glennon   book “National Security and Double Government.”

The second important thinker in this area is  Professor Michael J. Glennon who wrote the book  “National Security and Double Government.”. The strong point of his views on the subject is that he assumes that there is an internal struggle between those two forms of government, not just passive submission one to nother, but in most cases deep state prevails. This move led the USA "beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy."

The "deep state" (call by Professor Michael J. Glennon) The Trumanites, exersize their power due to alliance with Wall Street, almost unlimited funding (with many hidden sources belong US budget),  higher efficiency, abuse of secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and corruption of  the key decision-makers.

Here is how Amazon reviewer Mal Warwick summarized the book in his review written on December 22, 2014

Who makes national security decisions? Not who you think!

Why does Barack Obama's performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.

Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.

The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the "Madisonian" institutions incorporated into the Constitution — and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called "Trumanites" in Glennon's parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) "The United States has, in short," Glennon writes, "moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America's double government." If Al Qaeda hadn't existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it — and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.

The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.

Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the "Trumanites" he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.

The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I've learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I've read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, "resistance is futile." That's a helluva takeaway, isn't it?

On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. "Move to Vancouver," he said.

Another good summary of the book can be found is review by Bruce Morgan (Shadow Government )

October 28, 2014 | Tufts Now

Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security—and that is undermining our democracy, says the Fletcher School's Michael Glennon

Michael Glennon in his office

"We are clearly on the path to autocracy," says Michael Glennon. "There's no question that if we continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up . . . as institutional museum pieces." Photo: Kelvin Ma

Michael Glennon knew of the book, and had cited it in his classes many times, but he had never gotten around to reading the thing from cover to cover. Last year he did, jolted page after page with its illuminating message for our time.

The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene.

He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon's friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military. "Look," he told them. "I'm thinking of writing a book. Tell me if this is wrong." Every single one responded, "What you have here is exactly right."

Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon's book National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level—and unaccountable—bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.

Glennon's informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973, at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR's All Things Considered, the Today show and Nightline.

In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. "I feel a great sense of loss," Glennon admits. "I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it's not easy to see how to throw the current trends into reverse." Tufts Now spoke with Glennon recently to learn more of his perspective.

Tufts Now: You've been both an insider and an outsider with regard to government affairs. What led you to write this book?

Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security Agency—the NSA—to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.

Were you surprised by the continuity?

I was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo. Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in fulfilling his promises.

You use the phrase "double government," coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What did he mean by that?

Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the theory of "double government," which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two sets of institutions. First came "dignified" institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested, this was an illusion.

These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions, which he called Britain's "efficient" institutions, that actually ran the government behind the scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a "concealed republic."

The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into a form of double government, and that we have our own set of "dignified" institutions—Congress, the presidency and the courts. But when it comes to national security policy, these entities have become largely for show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation's security.

What are some components of this arrangement?

The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It's a diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that has come to dominate the formation of American national security policy to the point that Congress, the presidency and the courts all defer to it.

You call this group the "Trumanite network" in your book. What's the link to Harry Truman?

It was in Truman's administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S. military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA] was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn't come to light for many years thereafter.

In contrast to the Trumanites you set the "Madisonians." How would you describe them?

The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is largely mistaken.

The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which, say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that as a general matter, these three branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that's truer all the time.

So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.

Correct.

If that's true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media—all the observers we have?

I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented.

That is correct as far as it goes, but the reality is that's only half the picture. The other half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government, and the whole equilibrium breaks down.

What role, if any, have the media played?

The media have pretty much been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception, for a number of reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes a huge amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.

Second, access for the press is everything. There is huge incentive to pull punches, and you don't get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you're going to offer hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.

What is the role of terror in this environment?

The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It's fear of terrorism more than anything else that causes the American people to increasingly be willing to dispense with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety.

Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other great object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the government to the people.

You've been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of government changed?

Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a result, there were individuals in Congress—Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright, Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others—who were willing to stand up and insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and to the enactment of a number of pieces of reform legislation.

But there is no final victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and turned aside. I think today we are in many ways right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered something called Operation Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so awesome that if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.

To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I'm sure you know that President Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a democracy because of our domestic surveillance.

We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and you can argue about how far we are down that path. But there's no question that if we continue on that path, America's constitutionally established institutions—Congress, the courts and the presidency—will ultimately end up like Britain's House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.

Bruce Morgan can be reached at bruce.morgan@tufts.ed

Here is how Christopher Bellavita in Homeland Security Watch summarize an interesting discussion at Cato think tank which I highly recommend to watch:

Why has American national security policy changed so little from the Bush administration to the Obama

That’s the question Michael J. Glennon asks in his book “National Security and Double Government.”

His answer: national security policy is determined largely by “the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints.” The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy, Glennon claims.

You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon’s argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf.  The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for  me – persuasive.

His book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative competing hypotheses.  The book is richer, in my opinion.  But the core of Glennon’s position is in the paper.

This link takes you to a video of Glennon talking about his book at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-government (the talk starts at the 5:20 mark).

From the Cato site:

In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America’s “Madisonian institutions,” namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon’s view, these institutions have been supplanted by a “Trumanite network” of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite network threatens Americans’ liberties and the republican form of government.

Some blurb reviews:

I’ve spoken to three people I consider to be members of the “shadow national security state.”   One person said Glennon’s argument is nothing new.  The second told me he’s got it exactly right.  The third said it’s even worse.

Professor Peter Dale Scott book and articles

If Michael Glennon conseed defeat but still has some hope, here we enter perfect Danter hell picture along the lines "Leave all hopes those who dare to enter"

Professor Peter Dale Scott book and article represent probably the most comprehensive coverage, especially his book. But the article in the Asia-Pacific journal represents fair summary of his views on the subject (The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld (Updated March 13, 2014):

In the last decade it has become more and more obvious that we have in America today what the journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have called

two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre – and its entirety…visible only to God.1

And in 2013, particularly after the military return to power in Egypt, more and more authors referred to this second level as America’s “deep state.”2 Here for example is the Republican analyst Mike Lofgren:

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.3

At the end of 2013 a New York Times Op-Ed noted this trend, and even offered a definition of the term that will work for the purposes of this essay:

DEEP STATE n. A hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.4

The political activities of the deep state are the chief source and milieu of what I have elsewhere called “deep politics:” “all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.”5

Others, like Tom Hayden, call the deep state a “state within the state,” and suggest it may be responsible for the failure of the Obama administration to follow the policy guidelines of the president’s speeches:

We have seen evidence of a "state within the state" before, going back as far as the CIA's operations against Cuba. In Obama's time, the president correctly named the 2009 coup in Honduras a "coup", and then seemed powerless to prevent it.6

This development of a two-level or dual state has been paralleled by two other dualities: the increasing resolution of American society into two classes – the “one percent” and the “ninety-nine percent” – and the bifurcation of the U.S. economy into two aspects: the domestic, still subject to some governmental regulation and taxation, and the international, relatively free from governmental controls.7 All three developments have affected and intensified each other – particularly since the Reagan Revolution of 1980, which saw American inequality of wealth cease to diminish and begin to increase.8 Thus for example we shall see how Wall Street – the incarnation of the “one percent” – played a significant role in increasing the deep state after World War Two, and how three decades later the deep state played a significant role in realigning America for the Reagan Revolution.

In earlier books I have given versions of this America-centered account of America’s shift into empire and a deep state. But another factor to be mentioned is the shift of global history towards an increasingly global society dominated by a few emergent superpowers. This trend was accelerated after the Industrial Revolution by new technologies of transport, from the railroad in the 19th century to the jet plane and space travel in the 20th.9

In the fallout from this rearrangement we must include two world wars, as a result of which Britain ceased to act as the dominant superpower it had been since Napoleon. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union and the United States subsequently competed in a Cold War to fill the gap. It  was not however predetermined that the Cold War would be as thuggish and covertly violent as for decades it continued to be. For that we should look to more contingent causes on both sides of the Iron Curtain – starting with the character of Stalin and his party but also including the partly responsive development of the American deep state.

The Deep State, The Shadow Government and the Wall Street Overworld

The “deep state” was defined by the UK newsletter On Religion as “the embedded anti-democratic power structures within a government, something very few democracies can claim to be free from.”10 The term originated in Turkey in 1996, to refer to U.S.-backed elements, primarily in the intelligence services and military, who had repeatedly used violence to interfere with and realign Turkey’s democratic political process. Sometimes the definition is restricted to elements within the government (or “a state-within-the state”), but more often in Turkey the term is expanded, for historical reasons, to include “members of the Turkish underworld.”11 In this essay I shall use “deep state” in the larger sense, to include both the second level of secret government inside Washington and those outsiders powerful enough, in either the underworld or overworld, to give it direction. In short I shall equate the term “deep state” with what in 1993 I termed a “deep political system:” “ one which habitually resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society.”12

Like myself, Lofgren suggests an ambiguous symbiosis between two aspects of the American deep state:

1)  the Beltway agencies of the shadow government, like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, and

2)  the much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there.

In his words,

It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.13

I shall argue that in the 1950s Wall Street was a dominating complex. It included not just banks and oil firms but also the oil majors whose cartel arrangements were successfully defended against the U.S. Government by the Wall Street law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, home to the Dulles brothers. This larger complex is what I mean by the Wall Street overworld.

The Long History of the Wall Street Overworld

Lofgren’s inclusion of Wall Street is in keeping with Franklin Roosevelt’s observation in 1933 to his friend Col. E.M. House that “The real truth … is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”14

FDR’s insight is well illustrated by the efficiency with which a group of Wall Street bankers (including Nelson Rockefeller’s grandfather Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg) were able in a highly secret meeting in 1910 to establish the Federal Reserve System – a system which in effect reserved oversight of the nation’s currency supply and of all America’s banks in the not impartial hands of its largest.15 The political clout of the quasi-governmental Federal Reserve Board (where the federal Treasury is represented but does not dominate) was clearly demonstrated in 2008, when Fed leadership secured instant support from the successive administrations of a Texan Republican president, followed by a Midwest Democratic one, for public money to rescue the reckless management of Wall Street banks: banks Too Big To Fail, and of course far Too Big To Jail, but not Too Big To Bail.16

Wall Street and the Launching of the CIA

Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers, and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think alike because of the “revolving door” by which they pass easily from private to public service and back. In 1946 General Vandenberg, as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), recruited Allen Dulles, then a Republican lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell in New York, "to draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947." Dulles promptly formed an advisory group of six men, all but one of whom were Wall Street investment bankers or lawyers.17 Dulles and two of the six (William H. Jackson and Frank Wisner) later joined the agency, where Dulles proceeded to orchestrate policies, such as the overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala, that he had previously discussed in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations.18

There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director. Although he did not formally join the CIA until November 1950, he was in Berlin before the start of the 1948 Berlin Blockade, “supervising the unleashing of anti-Soviet propaganda across Europe.”19 In the early summer of 1948 he set up the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), in support of what became by the early 1950s “the largest CIA operation in Western Europe.”20

The Deep State and Funds for CIA Covert Operations

Wall Street was also the inspiration for what eventually became the CIA’s first covert operation: the use of “over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].”21 (The fundraising had begun at the wealthy Brook Club in New York; but Allen Dulles, still a Wall Street lawyer, persuaded Washington, which at first had preferred a private funding campaign, to authorize the operation through the National Security Council and the CIA.)22

Dulles’s friend Frank Wisner then left Wall Street to oversee an enlarged covert operations program through the newly created Office of Policy Co-ordination (OPC). Dulles, still a lawyer, campaigned successfully to reconstruct Western Europe through what became known as the Marshall Plan.23 Together with George Kennan and James Forrestal, Dulles also “helped devise a secret codicil [to the Marshall Plan] that gave the CIA the capability to conduct political warfare. It let the agency skim millions of dollars from the plan.”24

This created one of the earlier occasions when the CIA, directly or indirectly, recruited local assets involved in drug trafficking. AFL member Irving Brown, the assistant of AFL official Jay Lovestone (a CIA asset), was implicated in drug smuggling activities in Europe, at the same time that he used funds diverted from the Marshall Plan to establish

a "compatible left" labor union in Marseilles with Pierre Ferri-Pisani. On behalf of Brown and the CIA, Ferri-Pisani (a drug smuggler connected with Marseilles crime lord Antoine Guerini), hired goons to shellack striking Communist dock workers.25

An analogous funding source for the CIA developed in the Far East: the so-called

"M-Fund," a secret fund of money of enormous size that has existed in Japan [in 1991] for more than forty years. The Fund was established by the United States in the immediate postwar era for essentially the same reasons that later gave rise to the Marshall Plan of assistance by the U.S. to Western Europe, including the Federal Republic of Germany….. The M-Fund was used not only for the building of a democratic political system in Japan but, in addition, for all of the purposes for which Marshall Plan funds were used in Europe.26

For at least two decades the CIA lavishly subsidized right-wing parties in countries including Japan and Indonesia, possibly still using captured Axis funds.27 (One frequently encounters the claim that the source of the M-fund was gold looted by Japan during World War Two (“Yamashita’s gold”).28

As a general rule the CIA, rather than assimilating these funds into its own budget, appears to have left them off the books in the hands of cooperative allied powers – ranging from other U.S. agencies like the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA. set up in 1948 to administer the Marshall Plan) to oil companies to powerful drug kingpins.29

The CIA never abandoned its dependency on funds from outside its official budget to conduct its clandestine operations. In Southeast Asia, in particular, its proprietary firm Sea Supply Inc., supplied an infrastructure for a drug traffic supporting a CIA-led paramilitary force, PARU.30 The CIA appears also to have acted in coordination with slush funds from various U.S. government contracts, ranging from the Howard Hughes organization to (as we shall see) the foreign arms sales of U.S. defense corporations like Lockheed and Northrop.31

Lockheed Payoffs and CIA Clients: the Netherlands, Japan, Italy, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia

 

 

Kodama Yoshio, war criminal, drug trafficker, and purveyor of deep state US funds to Japanese politicians

Through the 1950s payouts from the M-fund were administered by Kodama Yoshio, “probably the CIA's chief asset in Japan;” while ”All accounts say that after the end of the occupation, the fund's American managers came from the CIA.”32  Kodama also received and distributed millions of funds from Lockheed to secure military contracts – an operation the CIA knew about but has never admitted involvement in.33 Lockheed’s system of payoffs was world-wide; and one sees CIA involvement with it in at least four other countries: the Netherlands, Italy, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. (Lockheed, the builder of the U-2, was a major CIA-cleared contractor.)34

The beneficiary in the Netherlands was Prince Bernhard, a close friend of CIA directors Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, and the organizer of the Bilderberg Group.35 In the case of Italy, payments were handled through a contact (“Antelope Cobbler”) who turned out to be whoever was the Italian Prime Minister of the moment (always from one of the parties subsidized earlier by the CIA).36

In the revealing instance of Indonesia, Lockheed payments were shifted in May 1965, over the legal objections of Lockheed's counsel, to a new contract with a  company set up by the firm's long-time local agent or middleman, August Munir Dasaad.86 This was just six months after a secret U.S. decision to have the CIA covertly assist

“individuals and organizations prepared to take obstructive action against the PKI [Indonesian Communist Party].” Over the longer term this meant identifying and keeping tabs on “anti-regime elements” and other potential leaders of a post-Sukarno regime.37

Although Dasaad had been a long-time supporter of Sukarno, by May 1965 he was already building connections with Sukarno’s eventual successor, Gen. Suharto, via a family relative, General Alamsjah, who knew Suharto and was the beneficiary of the new Lockheed account.38 After Suharto replaced Sukarno, Alamsjah, who controlled certain considerable funds, at once made funds available to Suharto, earning him the gratitude of the new President.39

In July 1965, furthermore, at the alleged nadir of U.S.-Indonesian aid relations, Rockwell-Standard had a contractual agreement to deliver two hundred light aircraft (Aero-Commanders) to the Indonesian Army (not the Air Force) in the next two months. Once again the commission agent on the deal, Bob Hasan or Hassan, was a political associate (and eventual business partner) of Suharto. More specifically, Suharto and Bob Hasan established two shipping companies to be operated by the Central Java army division, Diponegoro. This division, as has long been noticed, supplied the bulk of the personnel on both sides of the Gestapu coup drama in September 1965 -- both those staging the coup attempt, and those putting it down.40

While this was happening, Stanvac (a joint venture of the Standard companies known later as Exxon and Mobil) increased payments to the army's oil company, Permina, headed by an eventual political ally of Suharto, General Ibnu Sutowo. Alamsjah is said to have been allied with Ibnu Sutowo in plotting against Sukarno, along with a well-connected Japanese oilman, Nishijima Shigetada.41 After Suharto's overthrow of Sukarno, Fortune wrote that "Sutowo's still small company played a key part in bankrolling those crucial operations, and the army has never forgotten it."42

We shall deal later with the special case of Lockheed kickbacks to Saudi Arabia, which were far greater than those to Japan. It is important to note, however, the linkage between Middle East oil and arms sales: as U.S. imports of Middle East oil increased, the pressure on the U.S. balance of payments was offset by increased U.S. arms sales to the region. “In the period 1963-1974, arms sales to the Middle East went from 10 per cent of global arms imports to 36 per cent, half of which was supplied by the United States.”43

Iran in 1953: How an Oil Cartel Operation Became a Job for the CIA

The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world. As John Foster Dulles wrote in the 1930s to a British colleague,

The word “cartel” has here assumed the stigma of a bogeyman which the politicians are constantly attacking.  The fact of the matter is that most of these politicians are highly insular and nationalistic and because the political organization of the world has under such influence been so backward, business people who have had to cope realistically with international problems have had to find ways for getting through and around stupid political barriers.44

This same mentality also explains why Allen Dulles as an OSS officer in 1945 simply evaded orders from Washington forbidding him to negotiate with SS General Karl Wolff about a conditional surrender of German forces in Italy – an important breach of Roosevelt’s agreement with Stalin at Yalta for unconditional surrender, a breach that is regarded by many as helping lead to the Cold War.45 And it explains why Allen, as CIA Director in 1957, dealt summarily with Eisenhower’s reluctance to authorize more than occasional U-2 overflights of the USSR, by secretly approving a plan with Britain’s MI-6 whereby U-2 flights could be authorized instead by the UK Prime Minister Macmillan.46

This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman’s Justice Department sought to break up the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York, Standard Oil of California or Socony, Gulf Oil, and Texaco; together with Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called Seven Sisters of the cartel.) Faced with a government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon’s lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and Cromwell, where Foster was senior partner, refused: “If it were not for the question of national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on.”47

 

 

Wall Street, the former headquarters of both Sullivan and Cromwell and the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation

At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC’s nationalization by Iran’s Premier Mossadeq, by instituting, in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports.

In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest in discouraging nationalisation.... None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil; despite one or two picturesque episodes the boycott held.48

As a result Iranian oil production fell from 241 million barrels in 1950 to 10.6 million barrels in 1952.

This was accomplished by denying Iran the ability to export its crude oil. At that time, the Seven Sisters controlled almost 99% of the crude oil tankers in the world for such export, and even more importantly, the markets to which it was going.49

But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq’s differences with London.50

 

 

 

Allen and John Foster Dulles, pillars of both the state and the deep state

All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952, followed by the appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA. The Justice Department’s criminal complaint against the oil cartel was swiftly replaced by a civil suit, from which the oil cartel eventually emerged unscathed.51

Eisenhower, an open friend of the oil industry…changed the charges from criminal to civil and transferred responsibility of the case from the Department of Justice to the Department of State – the first time in history that an antitrust case was handed to State for prosecution. Seeing as how the Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles and the defense counsel for the oil cartel was Dulles’ former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell), the case was soon as good as dead.52

Thereafter

Cooperative control of the world market by the major oil companies remained in effect, with varying degrees of success, until the oil embargo of 1973-74. That the cooperation was more than tacit can be seen by the fact that antitrust regulations were specifically set aside a number of times during the 1950-1973 period, allowing the major companies to negotiate as a group with various Mideastern countries, and after its inception [in 1960], with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC.53

Also in November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve CIA in the efforts of MI6 and the oil companies in Iran54 -- although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953.55

The events of 1953 strengthened the role of the oil cartel as a structural component of the American deep state, drawing on its powerful connections to both Wall Street and the CIA.56  (Another such component was the Arabian-American Oil Company or ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, which increased oil production in 1951-53 to offset the loss of oil from Iran. Until it was fully nationalized in 1980, ARAMCO maintained undercover CIA personnel like William Eddy among its top advisors.)57 The five American oil majors in particular were also strengthened by the success of AJAX, as Anglo-Iranian (renamed BP) was henceforth forced to share 40 percent of the oil from its Iran refinery with them.

Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq’s overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa. In terms of the deep state, the oil cartel or deep state initiated in 1951 a process that the American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available, is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a “CIA coup.”

The CIA, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the Wall Street Overworld

The “revolving door” also circulates top-level intelligence officials and the chiefs of the cleared contractors referred to by Mike Lofgren as part of the deep state. Tim Shorrock revealed in 2007 that “about 70 percent of the estimated $60 billion the government spends every year on…intelligence” is outsourced to private intelligence contractors like Booz, Allen & Hamilton (now Booz Allen Hamilton) and SAIC.58 For example Mike McConnell “went from being head of the National Security Agency under Bush 41 and Clinton directly to Booz Allen, one of the nation’s largest private intelligence contractors, then became Bush’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), then went back to Booz Allen, where he is now Executive Vice President.” Intelligence officers in government write the non-competitive contracts for the private corporations that they may have worked for and may work for again.59 And over the years the “revolving door” has also exchanged personnel between Booz Allen and the international oil companies served by the firm.

The original firm of Booz, Allen, & Hamilton split in 2008 into Booz Allen Hamilton, focused on USG business, and Booz & Company in New York, assuming the old company’s commercial and international portfolio. Booz Allen Hamilton is majority owned by the private equity firm the Carlyle Group, noted for its association with political figures like both presidents Bush.60

 

 

 

Booz Allen Hamilton Headquarters

Lofgren points to the deep state importance of Booz Allen Hamilton, 99 percent of whose business dependent on the U.S. government.61 Booz Allen has been linked in the media to NSA ever since its employee Edward Snowden decamped with NSA records. But Booz Allen, one of the oldest and largest of the “cleared contractors,” has been intertwined with the CIA’s covert operations since Allen Dulles became CIA Director in 1953.62 In the same year, Booz Allen began “to take on several overseas assignments…: a land-registration system in the Philippines, a restructuring of Egypt’s customs operations and textile industries, and work for Iran’s national oil company.”63 All three assignments overlapped with CIA covert ops in 1953, including the Philippine land distribution program which Edward Lansdale promoted in order to fight a Huk insurrection, and the CIA’s operation TP/AJAX (with Britain’s MI6) to rescue the Anglo-Iranian oil company (later BP).64

 

 

Miles Copeland, Jr., ex-CIA, ex-Booz Allen & Hamilton, ex-Khashoggi’s private CIA

But the most important CIA-Booz Allen cooperation may have been in Egypt. In March 1953 Miles Copeland, having resigned from the CIA to join Booz-Allen, “returned to Cairo under what was, for all practical purposes, a joint CIA-BA&H mission.”65 In addition to offering management advice to the Egyptian government in general, and to a private textile mill, Miles also gave Nasser advice on establishing his intelligence service (the Mukhabarat), and “soon became his closest Western advisor” (as well as his top channel to the USG, more important than either the local US ambassador or CIA chief)66

Copeland’s role with Nasser did not make him a shaper of U.S. policy; his pro-Nasser views were largely subordinated to the pro-British anti-Nasserism of the Dulles brothers. But they did establish a bond between Copeland and the Eisenhower White House. By 1967, when Nixon was preparing to run for president, Copeland had taken a leave of absence from Booz Allen to become a prestigious and well-paid consultant for oil companies.

The CIA, Miles Copeland, and Adnan Khashoggi

In 1966 Copeland, while technically on leave from Booz Allen, made close contact with Adnan Khashoggi, a young Arab who was in the course of becoming both a “principal foreign agent” of the U.S. and also extremely wealthy on the commissions he earned from Lockheed and other military firms on arms sales to Saudi Arabia.67 (“To give some sense of the size of the business, the company acknowledged in the mid-1970s that it had provided $106 million in commissions to Khashoggi between 1970 and 1975, more than ten times the level of payments made to the next most important connection, Yoshi [sic] Kodama of Japan.”68

 

 

 

Adnan Khashoggi, shadowy backer of politicians (Time, Jan. 19, 1987)

By Copeland’s own account in 1989, this encounter with Khashoggi “put the two of us on a ‘Miles-and-Adnan’ basis that has lasted for more than twenty years of business, parties, and a very special kind of political action.”69 Copeland adds that

Adnan and I, separately had been called on by our respective friends in Langley [i.e., CIA] to… have an official [sic], off-the-record exchange of ideas on the emerging crisis in the Middle East, and come up with suggestions that the tame bureaucrats would like to have made but couldn’t.70

Copeland almost immediately flew to Cairo and immersed himself in a series of high-level but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to forestall what soon became the 1967 Six Day Egyptian-Israeli Six Day War. By his account, his mission, though unsuccessful, gave a “tremendous boost” to his reputation, enabling him “to accelerate the attempt I had already started to establish a ‘private CIA’ by use of confidential arrangements with politically astute members of the client companies.”71

Copeland’s self-promoting claims are controversial, and a number of establishment writers have described his books as “unreliable.”72 But eyewitness Larry Kolb corroborates that Copeland was close to Khashoggi, and that the two of them

had written a white paper… proposing that… rich countries, including not only the United States but also the Arab oil states, should establish a “Marshall Plan” for all the needy countries of the Middle East, including Israel.

Rewritten with Kolb’s assistance after consultation with the Reagan White House, the plan would be backed by a “Mideast Peace Fund” to which “Adnan was pledging a hundred million dollars of his own money.”73

The proposal failed, partly because of the Middle East’s resistance to negotiated solutions, but also partly because by the 1980s Khashoggi was no longer as rich and influential as he had once been. His function as an agent of influence in the Middle East and elsewhere had been sharply limited after the United States, by the Corrupt Federal Practices Act of 1978, outlawed direct payments by US corporations to foreign individuals. Henceforward the function of bestowing money and sexual favors on client politicians passed primarily from Khashoggi to another CIA connection, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).74 A major shareholder in BCCI was Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, Khashoggi’s friend and business partner and (according to the Senate BCCI Report) “the CIA's former principal contact in the Arab Middle East.”75

What the story of the failed “Mideast Peace Fund” reveals is first, that Khashoggi (like BCCI after him) was of interest to Washington because of his ability to negotiate with both Israel and Arab countries; and second, that Copeland and what Copeland called his “private CIA,”76 was in a commanding position as lead adviser to Khashoggi, while still on unpaid leave from Booz Allen Hamilton.

Khashoggi, the CIA’s Asset Edward K. Moss, and Political Corruption

A powerful connection was formed by combining Copeland’s political contacts with Khashoggi’s millions. Copeland may have been responsible for Khashoggi’s inspired choice of the under-recognized Edward K. Moss, another man with CIA connections, as his p.r. agent in Washington.77

Back in November 1962, the CIA, as part of its planning to get rid of Castro, decided  to use Moss for the Political Action Group of the CIA’s Covert Action (CA) staff.78 This was more than a year after the FBI had advised the CIA that Moss’s mistress Julia Cellini and her brother Dino Cellini were alleged to be procurers, while “the Cellini brothers have long been associated with the narcotics and white slavery rackets in Cuba.”79

This FBI report suggests an important shared interest between Moss and Khashoggi: sexual corruption. Just as his uncle Yussuf Yassin had been a procurer of women for King Abdul-Aziz, so Khashoggi himself was said to have “used sex to win over U.S. executives.” The bill for the madam who supplied girls en masse to his yacht in the Mediterranean ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars.80 Khashoggi made a practice of supplying those he wished to influence with dollars as well as sex.

 

 

 

Khashoggi’s Superyacht Kingdom 5KR, now owned by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal

The CIA of course was forbidden to use sex and money in this way in the United States, or to make in the United States the payments to right-wing politicians that characterized its behavior in the rest of the world. But no such prohibition applied to Khashoggi. According to Anthony Summers,

Khashoggi had courted Nixon in 1967 by putting a plane at his disposal to tour the Middle East after the Six-Day War. Soon afterward, using a proxy, he opened an account at Rebozo’s [Bebe Rebozo, Nixon’s close confidante] in Florida. He did so, he explained to Watergate prosecutors, hoping to “curry favor with Rebozo,” to get an entrée to the man who might become president, and to pursue business deals.81

Khashoggi in effect served as a “cutout,” or representative, in a number of operations forbidden to the CIA and the companies he worked with. Lockheed, for one, was conspicuously absent from the list of military contractors who contributed illicitly to Nixon’s 1972 election campaign. But there was no law prohibiting their official representative, Khashoggi, from cycling $200 million through the bank of Nixon’s friend Bebe Rebozo.82

(Pierre Salinger heard from Khashoggi that in 1972 he had donated $1 million to Nixon, corroborating the often-heard claim that Khashoggi had brought it in a briefcase to Nixon’s western White House in San Clemente, and then “forgotten” to take it away.)83

Khashoggi of course did not introduce such corruption to American politics; he merely joined a milieu where defense companies had used money and girls for years to win defense contracts in Washington and Las Vegas.84 Prominent in this practice was Howard Hughes, whom Khashoggi soon joined in international investments. (After a Senate investigator on Khashoggi’s trail registered at the Hughes-owned Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, a blonde came unexpectedly to his hotel room, and said, “I’m here for your pleasure.”)85

But Khashoggi’s corruption channels and targets overlapped with those of others with CIA connections. In 1972 it was alleged that funds from the Paradise Island casino in the Bahamas were being secretly carried to Nixon and his friend Bebe Rebozo, by a casino employee. This was Seymour (Sy) Alter, who was both “a friend of Nixon and Rebozo since 1962” and also an associate of Edward Moss’s brother-in-law Eddie Cellini, the casino manager at Paradise Island. 86 The funds came from the Paradise Island Bridge Company, a company partly owned by an officer of Benguet International, a firm represented in America by Paul Helliwell.87 It is likely that Nixon himself had a hidden interest in the Bridge Company, which might explain the revelation through Operation Tradewinds that a “Richard M. Nixon” (not otherwise identified) had an account at Helliwell’s Castle Bank.88

Three facts point to a deep state interest in what might otherwise seem a matter of personal corruption. The first is that Paul Helliwell had set up two companies for the CIA  -- CAT Inc. (Later Air America) and SEA Supply Inc. in Bangkok -- that became the infrastructure of the CIA’s covert operations with drug-trafficking armies in Southeast Asia.89 The second is that Paul Helliwell’s banking partner, E.P. Barry, had been the postwar head of OSS Counterintelligence (X-2) in Vienna, which oversaw the recovery of SS gold in Operation Safehaven.90 The third is that for over four decades persons from Booz Allen Hamilton have been among the very small group owning the profitable Paradise Island Bridge Company. (A recent partner in the Paradise Island Bridge Company is Booz Allen Senior Vice-President Robert Riegle.)91

 

 

 

The Safari Club today, now the Fairmont Mount Kenya Safari Club

Moss, Khashoggi, the Safari Club, and the International Overworld

The power exerted by Khashoggi and Moss was not limited to Khashoggi’s access to funds and women. By the 1970s, Moss was chairman of the elite Safari Club in Kenya, where he invited Khashoggi in as majority owner.92 The exclusive property became the venue for an alliance between intelligence agencies that wished to compensate for the CIA’s retrenchment in the wake of President Carter’s election and Senator Church’s post-Watergate reforms.93

As former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal once told Georgetown University alumni,

In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran.94

Prince Turki’s candid remarks– “your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. …. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together … and established what was called the Safari Club.” – made it clear that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome restraints established by political decisions of the public state in Washington.

Obviously the property owned by Khashoggi and Moss in Kenya should not be confused with the intelligence operation of the same name. But it would be wrong also to make a radical separation between the two: the two men Khashoggi and Moss would appear to be part of this supranational intelligence milieu.

Specifically Khashoggi’s activities of corruption by sex and money, after they too were somewhat curtailed by Senator Church’s post-Watergate reforms, appear to have been taken up by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a bank where Khashoggi’s friend and business partner Kamal Adham, the Saudi intelligence chief and Safari Club member, was a part-owner.95

 

 

 

BCCI on the cover of Time, July 6, 1991.

The Deep State, the Safari Club, and BCCI

The usual account of this super-agency’s origin is that it was

the brainchild of Count Alexandre de Marenches, the debonair and mustachioed chief of France’s CIA. The SDECE (Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage)…. Worried by Soviet and Cuban advances in postcolonial Africa, and by America’s post-Watergate paralysis in the field of undercover activity, the swashbuckling Marenches had come to Turki’s father, King Faisal, with a proposition…. [By 1979] Somali president Siad Barre had been bribed out of Soviet embrace by $75 million worth of Egyptian arms (paid for… by Saudi Arabia)….96

However the well-informed Mahmood Mamdani sees it as the product of Washington’s search for new proxies after the debacle of the U.S.- South African debacle in Angola in the mid-1970s:

Apartheid South Africa was confirmed to be a political liability. The recognition only aggravated the search for proxies. Its first success was a regional alliance called the Safari Club, put together with the blessing of Henry Kissinger.97

As Kissinger was still Secretary of State when the Safari Club was founded, this would suggest that it was an authorized, not a deep state creation. So would the Club’s early successes that Mamdani cites, especially when

it helped bring about the historic rapprochement between two strategic American Allies, Egypt and Israel, laying the ground for Anwar al-Sadat’s pathbreaking November 1977 visit to Jerusalem. The suggestion for the meeting was first made in a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to President Sadat, carried by the Moroccan representative in the club.98

But after Carter was elected, according to Trento, the Safari Club allied itself with Richard Helms and Theodore Shackley against the restrained intelligence policies of Jimmy Carter. In Trento’s account, the dismissal by William Colby in 1974 of CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton,

combined with Watergate, is what prompted the Safari Club to start working with [former DCI Richard] Helms [then U.S. Ambassador to Iran] and his most trusted operatives outside of Congressional and even Agency purview. James Angleton said before his death that “Colby destroyed counterintelligence. But because Colby was seen by Shackley and Helms as having betrayed the CIA to Congress, they simply began working with outsiders like Adham and Saudi Arabia. The traditional CIA answering to the president was an empty vessel having little more than technical capability.”99

Joseph Trento adds that “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations,… With the official blessing of George Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed…  the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a worldwide money-laundering machine.”100

Trento claims also that the Safari Club then was able to work with some of the controversial CIA operators who were then forced out of the CIA by Turner, and that this was coordinated by perhaps the most controversial of them all: Theodore Shackley.

Shackley, who still had ambitions to become DCI, believed that without his many sources and operatives like [Edwin] Wilson, the Safari Club—operating with [former DCI Richard] Helms in charge in Tehran—would be ineffective. …  Unless Shackley took direct action to complete the privatization of intelligence operations soon, the Safari Club would not have a conduit to [CIA] resources. The solution: create a totally private intelligence network using CIA assets until President Carter could be replaced.101

Kevin Phillips has suggested that Bush on leaving the CIA had dealings with the bank most closely allied with Safari Club operations: the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In Phillips’ words,

After leaving the CIA in January 1977, Bush became chairman of the executive committee of First International Bancshares and its British subsidiary, where, according to journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin in their 1992 book ‘False Profits’ [p. 345], Bush ‘traveled on the bank’s behalf and sometimes marketed to international banks in London, including several Middle Eastern institutions.’102

It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggi’s before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.103

Khashoggi, Copeland, BCCI, and the Iran-Contra Scandal

Joseph Trento adds that through the London branch of this bank, which Bush chaired, “Adham’s petrodollars and BCCI money flowed for a variety of intelligence operations”104 It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggi’s before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.105

Khashoggi and BCCI together, moreover, with the assistance of Miles Copeland, initiated what we remember as the Iran-Contra arms scandal. According to Theodore Draper, in his exhaustive study of Iran-Contra,

A chance encounter between Adnan Khashoggi and Manucher Ghorbanifar effectively set the Iran affair in motion. As Khashoggi told the story to the French writer Michel Clerc, the meeting took place in Hamburg in April 1985.

Draper notes furthermore that the deal soon involved three Israelis, Yaacov Nimrodi, Adolph (Al) Schwimmer, and David Kimche, for whom “Khashoggi was no newcomer.”Together with Israeli Defense Minister Sharon, the three had “met with President Nimeiri of the Sudan [in May 1982] at a safari resort in Kenya owned by Khashoggi”—i.e., the Safari Club.106 But Khashoggi’s connection to Schwimmer went even further back: the two men had been introduced in Las Vegas by Schwimmer’s partner in gun-running to the infant state of Israel, Hank Greenspun.107

Draper’s account of the Hamburg meeting fails however to note that Miles Copeland and his assistant Larry Kolb were (according to their own accounts) also present. Copeland writes that he and Khashoggi met with the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, after which Copeland wrote up an Iran arms sales proposal. Copeland claims this had nothing to do with either Contras or hostages, but was intended as a “second paper to McFarlane…as an appendix to the ‘Marshall Plan’ paper. So far as [Khashoggi} was personally concerned, he was attracted to [Ghorbanifar’s] proposal only to the extent to which it could be tied into plans for over all Middle Eastern peace.”108

Copeland’s aide Larry Kolb agrees that he, Copeland, Khashoggi, and Schwimmer were all present with Ghorbanifar and others at the 1985 Hamburg meeting. There, according to Kolb, Khashoggi

said that in recent meetings in Washington, he’d been told that if the American government was going to participate in this venture…it would have to be structured in such a way that there would be no trail of arms… leading from the United States to Iran. So, Adnan said… it had been arranged that the actual goods could come from the Israeli government… and be transported directly from Israel to Iran….

But arms trading and spare parts and hostages took up very little of the conversation that day. Most of the time was spent thinking, and talking,… about a strategic opening between the United States and Iran – as a means of blunting Soviet attempts to dominate the world’s third largest oil producer.109

Later he and Copeland wrote up the meeting in a paper “titled ‘Adnan Khashoggi’s Views on the Possibilities of a Strategic Initiative Between the United States and Iran’,” that “wasn’t about an arms deal.” They gave it to Khashoggi to present to McFarlane.

We had no idea then that… months later a wild-ass Marine colonel would force the whole thing out into the open by stealing Adnan [Khashoggi]’s fifteen-million-dollar bridge loan which funded the sale and sending the money to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.110

The Congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair agrees with Kolb that “Khashoggi suggested that Ghorbanifar try to develop access to the United States and its arms through Israel.”111 And the Senate investigation of BCCI also reports:

Both Saudi businessman Adnan Khashoggi and Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar were central agents of the United States in selling arms to Iran in the Iran/Contra affair. According to the official chronologies of the Iran/Contra committees, Khashoggi acted as the middleman for five Iranian arms deals for the United States, financing a number of them through BCCI …. According to his own and other published accounts, he provided some $30 million in loans altogether…. Both Khashoggi and Ghorbanifar banked at BCCI's offices in Monte Carlo, and for both, BCCI's services were essential.112

Both Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi have been presented as mavericks interested in arms sales for their own individual profit. However the participation of Copeland  suggests that, once again,  what Copeland called “friends in Langley” may have been interested in engaging them in an operation to which both the Secretaries of State and of Defense were resolutely opposed.

The Deep State and the BCCI Cover-Up

It is clear that for years the American deep state in Washington was both involved with and protected BCCI. Acting CIA director Richard Kerr acknowledged to a Senate Committee “that the CIA had also used BCCI for certain intelligence-gathering operations.”113

Later, a congressional inquiry showed that for more than ten years preceding the BCCI collapse in the summer of 1991, the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the Customs Service, and the Department of Justice all failed to act on hundreds of tips about the illegalities of BCCI’s international activities.114

Far less clear is the attitude taken by Wall Street banks towards the miscreant BCCI. The Senate report on BCCI charged however that the Bank of England “had withheld information about BCCI’s frauds from public knowledge for 15 months before closing the bank.”115

Of course the scope and influence of BCCI reflected changes in the global superstructure of finance since the oil price hikes of the 1970s. A recent study of the dangerously unstable concentration of ownership in the world showed only four recognizable Wall Street institutions among the top twenty: JPMorgan Chase & Co, the Goldman Sachs Group, Bank of New York Mellon Corp, and Merrill Lynch.116 Of these, Bank of New York, the bank heavily involved in the 1990s looting of Russia, interlocked with BCCI through the Swiss banking activities of the international banker Bruce Rappaport, “thought to have ties to US and Israeli intelligence.” (Alfred Hartmann, a board member of BCCI, was both vice-chairman of Rappaport's Swiss bank, Bank of New York-Intermaritime, and also head of BCCI’s Swiss subsidiary, the Banque de Commerce et de Placements).117 The mysterious E.P. Barry, the OSS veteran who had overseen the recovery of SS gold in Operation Safehaven before becoming the banking partner of Paul Helliwell, was also a major stockholder in Rappaport’s Inter Maritime Bank.)118

The collapse of BCCI in 1991 did not see an end to systematic Saudi-financed political corruption in the U.S. and elsewhere. After a proposed major arms sale in the 1980s met enhanced opposition in Congress from the Israeli lobby, Saudi Arabia negotiated a multi-billion pound long-term contract with the United Kingdom – the so-called al-Yamamah deal. It developed much later that overpayments for the purchased weapons were siphoned off into a huge slush fund for political payoffs, including “hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan."119 According to Robert Lacey, the payments to Prince Bandar were said to total one billion pounds over more than a decade, including “a suitcase containing more than $10 million” that went to a Vatican priest for the CIA’s long-time clients, the Christian Democratic Party.120 The money went through a Saudi Embassy account in the Riggs Bank, Washington; according to Trento, the Embassy’s use of the Riggs Bank dated back to the mid-1970s, when, in his words, “the Saudi royal family had taken over intelligence financing for the United States.”121

As we saw earlier. the CIA had “laundered over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].”122 These practices, in other words, survived the legal efforts to end them.

Conclusion: A Supranational Deep State

The complex milieu of Khashoggi, the BCCI, and the Safari Club can be characterized as a supranational deep state, whose organic links to the CIA may have helped consolidate it. It is clear however that decisions taken at this level by the Safari Club and BCCI were in no way guided by the political determinations of those elected to power in Washington. On the contrary, Prince Turki’s candid remarks revealed that the Safari Club (with the alleged participation of two former CIA Directors, Bush and Helms) was expressly created to overcome restraints established by political decisions in Washington.

A former Turkish president and prime minister once commented that the Turkish deep state was the real state, and the public state was only a “spare state,” not the real one.123 A better understanding of the American deep state is necessary, if we are to prevent it from assuming permanently the same role.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended Citation: Peter Dale Scott, "The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, No. 5, March 10, 2014.

Notes

1 Dana Priest and William Arkin, Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State (New York: Little Brown, 2011), 52.

2 E.g. Marc Ambinder and D.G. Grady, Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry (New York: Wiley, 2013); cf. John Tirman, “The Quiet Coup: No, Not Egypt. Here,” HuffingtonPost, July 9, 2013: “Now we know: the United States of America is partially governed by a deep state, undemocratic, secret, aligned with intelligence agencies, spying on friend and foe, lawless in almost every respect.”

3 Mike Lofgren, “A Shadow Government Controls America,” Reader Supported News, February 22, 2014.

4 Grant Barrett, “A Wordnado of Words in 2013,” New York Times, December 21, 2013.

5 Peter Dale Scott, Deep politics and the death of JFK (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 7.

6Tom Hayden discussing the crisis in Venezuela,” Tikkun, February 25, 2014.

7 To take a single telling example, six of Sam Walton's heirs are now reportedly wealthier than the bottom 30% of Americans, or 94.5 million people (Tim Worstall, “Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans,” Forbes, December 14, 2011). Cf. the devastating picture of a disintegrating America in George Packer, The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

8 See Kevin Phillips, The politics of rich and poor: wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan aftermath (New York: HarperCollins, 1991). Cf. John T. Stinson, The Reagan Legacy (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 146; Timothy Noah, The great divergence: America's growing inequality crisis and what we can do about it (New York: Bloomsbury, 2012).

9 For the impact of railroads on expanded social awareness, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).

10What is the Deep State?” On Religion [2013].

11 Gareth Jenkins, “Susurluk and the Legacy of Turkey’s Dirty War,” Terrorism Monitor, May 1, 2008; quoted in Peter Dale Scott, “9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics," Global Research, June 11, 2008. For the Susurluk incident, see also Scott, American War Machine, 19-20, etc.

12 Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, xi-xii.

13 Lofgren, “ A Shadow Government Controls America.”

14 Quoted in Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, 1.

15 Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote six years later: “Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred[s] of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island [the appropriately named Jekyll Island] deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written (B.C. Forbes, Leslie’s Weekly, October 19, 1916; in T. Cushing Daniel, Real money versus false money-bank credits; the most important factor in civilization and least understood by the people [Washington, D.C., The Monetary educational bureau, 1924], 169; cf. B.C. Forbes, Men who are making America [New York: Forbes Publishing Co., 1922], 398; cf. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve [Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1994]). Paul Warburg later wrote that “Though eighteen years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference, concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy” (Paul Warburg, The Federal Reserve System: Its Origin and Growth [New York, Macmillan, 1930], ZZ).

16 Congress was persuaded to provide perfunctory support of the bailout, under an alleged mysterious threat of martial law. See Peter Dale Scott, “Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War,” Global Research, January 8, 2009; reprinted in  Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, eds., The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (Montreal, Global Research Publishers. Centre for Research on Globalization, 2010), 219-40; Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., “Sen. Inhofe: [Henry] Paulsen [Secretary of the Treasury and former Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs] Threatened Martial Law To Pass Bailout,” LewRockwell.com, November 20, 2008.

17 Richard Helms with William Hood A look over my shoulder: a life in the Central Intelligence Agency (New York: Random House, 2003), 82-83. Cf. Scott, American War Machine, 26-28.

18 Laurence H Shoup and William Minter, Imperial brain trust: the Council on Foreign Relations and United States foreign policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977).

19 Gordon Thomas, Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence Inside MI5 and MI6 (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/ St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 98. This may have occurred during Dulles’s visit to Europe in the spring of 1947 (James Srodes, Dulles: Master of Spies [Washington: Henry Regnery, 1999], 392).

20 Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand: Britain, America, and Cold War secret intelligence (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2001), 343. Dulles also chaired the executive committee of the companion National Committee for a Free Europe (behind the Iron Curtain), whose legal affairs were handled by Sullivan and Cromwell (Wilson D. Miscamble, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 204.

21 Amy B. Zegart, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1999), 189; citing Christopher Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 172; see also Church Committee, Final Report, Book 4, 28-29.

22 David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The Espionage Establishment (New York: Random House, 1967), 166; Scott, Road to 9/11, 13.

23 “In January 1946 Dulles outlined in some detail a reconstruction plan that is one of the earliest notions of what would, a year later, be known as the Marshall Plan” (Srodes, Allen Dulles: Master of Spies, 374).

24 Tim Weiner, Legacy of ashes: the history of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 28.

25 Douglas Valentine, “The French Connection Revisited: The CIA, Irving Brown, and Drug Smuggling as Political Warfare,” Covert Action.

26 Norbert Schlei, “Japan's ‘M-Fund’ Memorandum, January 7, 1991,“ JPRI [Japan Policy Research Institute] Working Paper No. 11: July 1995: “Incident to the revision of the Security Treaty [in 1960], Vice President Nixon agreed to turn over exclusive control of the M-Fund to Japan. It has been alleged that this action by Nixon was part of a corrupt political bargain, whereby it was agreed that if Japan would assist him to become President of the United States, Nixon would agree to release control of the Fund to Japan and, if he became President, would return Okinawa to Japan.”

27 "C.I.A. Spent Millions to Support Japanese Right in 50's and 60's," New York Times, October 9, 1994. Cf. Scott, American War Machine, 93-94, 298-99; citing Chalmers Johnson, “The 1955 System and the American Connection: A Bibliographic Introduction,” JPRI [Japan Policy Research Institute] Working Paper No. 11: July 1995.

28 Sterling Seagrave and Peggy Seagrave, Gold warriors: America's secret recovery of Yamashita's gold (London: Verso, 2003). Cf. Richard Hoyt, Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie (New York: Forge, 2002), 80.

29 Scott, American War Machine, 94, etc.

30 Scott, American War Machine,

31 Norman Mailer, “A Harlot High and Low: Reconnoitering Through the Secret Government,” New York, August 16, 1976 (Hughes); Michael Schaller, Altered states: the United States and Japan since the occupation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 294 (Lockheed).

32 Johnson, “The 1955 System and the American Connection.”

33  David E. Kaplan and Alec Dubro, Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 89-90. Cf. Jonathan Marshall, in William O. Walker, III, ed., Drug control policy: essays in historical and comparative perspective (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 108:

“Yoshio Kodama’s fortune, built of profits from tungsten and opium, established the party that today rules Japan…. Kodama contributed to the pervasive corruption of Japanese politics by steering huge corporate contributions into the coffers of favored LDP members. This pattern culminated in the Lockheed scandal, which revealed that multi-million-dollar payoff by American aerospace firms had swayed key procurement decisions by Japan’s national airline and defense establishment and raised the possibility that the CIA had used Kodama and corporate funds to influence Japanese politics. The money-laundering channel used for Lockheed’s bribes was favored both by the CIA and international drug traffickers.”

34 Thomas Fensch, ed. The C.I.A. and the U-2 Program: 1954-1974 (The Woodlands, TX: New Century Books, 2001).

35 William D. Hartung, Prophets of war: Lockheed Martin and the making of the military-industrial complex (New York: Nation Books, 2011), 121; David Boulton, The Grease Machine (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 97 (friends).

36 Andrew Feinstein, The shadow world: inside the global arms trade (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 265; Anthony Sampson, The Arms Bazaar (New York: Viking, 1977), 135-36.

37 Bradley R. Simpson, Economists with guns: authoritarian development and U.S.-Indonesian relations, 1960-1968  (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008), 142;

quoting from CIA, “Political Action Project,”, November 19, 1964; FRUS, 1964-1968, 26:181-84.

38 In addition there was “a US deal to deliver 200 light aircraft to the Indonesian Army in July 1965.” The aircraft went to the army’s Diponegoro division, which “ as well as supplying the bulk of the  [September 30] “coup” personnel in Java, … also provided the bulk of the personnel for its suppression” (Nathaniel Mehr, Constructive bloodbath' in Indonesia: the United States, Britain and the mass killings of 1965-66 [Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 2009], 36).

39 Peter Dale Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967,” Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985; citing

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, Multinational corporations and United States foreign policy, hearings before the Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1973-1976), Part 12, 937-65.

40 Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno.”

41 Masashi Nishihara, The Japanese and Sukarno's Indonesia: Tokyo-Jakarta relations, 1951-1966 (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976), 171, 194, 202; Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno.”

42 Fortune, July 1973, 154, cf. Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1967.

43 John Dumbrell and Axel R Schäfer (eds.), America's 'special relationships’: foreign and domestic aspects of the politics of alliance (London: Routledge, 2009), 187.

44 John Foster Dulles to Lord McGowan, Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries; in Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius, A law unto itself: the untold story of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (New York: Morrow, 1988), 127.

45 Charles T. O'Reilly, Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation, 1943-1945 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 288; Peter Dale Scott, "How Allen Dulles and the SS Preserved Each Other," Covert Action Information Bulletin, 25 (Winter 1986), 4-14.  Dulles’s plans to use SS resources in post-war Germany cab be seen as part of a successful plan to frustrate the implementation of Roosevelt’s so-called Morgenthau Plan to deindustrialize Germany.

46 Stephen Dorril, MI6, 659-660.

47 Ovid Demaris, Dirty Business: The Corporate-Political Money-Power Game (New York: Avon, 1974), 213-14.

48 J.P.D. Dunbabin, International relations since 1945 : a history in two volumes

(London: Longman, 1994), Vol 2, 344. The boycott is denied without argumentation in Exxon’s corporate history (Bennett H. Wall et al., Growth in a changing environment: a history of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), Exxon Corporation, 1950-1975 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), Vol. 4, 476: “Despite oft-printed statements to the contrary, the oil majors did not conspire to boycott NIOC oil.”

49 Robert Palmer Smith, Darkest truths of black gold: an oil industry executive breaks the industry's code of silence (New York: iUniverse, 2007), 256. In July 1952 Mossadeq attempted to break the embargo by contracting to sell oil to a small private Italian oil firm. The manoeuver was frustrated by the British Royal Navy, which in July 1952 intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and redirected it to Aden. The news dissuaded other tankers from trying to reach Abadan (Mary Ann Heiss, Empire and Nationhood: The United States, Great Britain, and Iranian Oil, 1950-1954 [New York: Columbia University Press, 1997], 130; Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's men: an American coup and the roots of Middle East terror [Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003], 136).

50 Mostafa Elm, Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1992), 198-99 (Churchill); Robert Moskin, American Statecraft: The Story of the U.S. Foreign Service (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/ St. Martin's Press, 2013), 627-28 (Harriman).

51 Demaris, Dirty Business, 214-25: “The incoming Eisenhower Administration… quickly dropped the criminal case. The civil suit that was instituted alleged that the five American oil companies violated the Sherman Antitrust and the Wilson Tariff Acts by conspiring to divide and control foreign production and distribution…. An inadequate staff was assigned to the case and the action finally petered out a decade later with a couple of meaningless consent decrees.”

52 Robert Sherrill, The oil follies of 1970-1980: how the petroleum industry stole the show (and much more besides) (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1983), 221).

53  William R. Freudenburg and Robert Gramling,     Oil in troubled waters: perceptions, politics, and the battle over offshore drilling (Albany : State University of New York Press, 1994); 17; citing Shukri Mohammed Ghanem, OPEC, the Rise and Fall of an Exclusive Club (London : KPI, 1986); Mira Wilkins, “The Oil Companies in Perspective,” in Raymond Vernon (ed.), The Oil Crisis (New York: Norton, 1976).

54 William Roger Louis, “Britain and the Overthrow of Mossadeq,” in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne (eds.), Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2004), 168. Cf. William R. Clark, Petrodollar warfare: oil, Iraq and the future of the dollar (Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 2005), 125: “[T]he Dulles brothers had already conceived a plot when Eisenhower became president in January 1953.”

55 Scot Macdonald, Rolling the iron dice : historical analogies and decisions to use military force in regional contingencies (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 98. Cf. Richard H. Immerman, John Foster Dulles: Piety, Pragmatism, and Power in U.S. Foreign Policy (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1999), 67. Allen Dulles played a personal role in TP/AJAX, by flying to Italy and persuading the frightened Shah to return to Tehran.

56 In the past, wishing to dissociate the term “deep state” from organizational connotations, I have written of the American “deep state” as “a milieu both inside and outside government with the power to steer the history of the public state and sometimes redirect it” (“William Pawley, the Kennedy Assassination, and Watergate,” Global Research, November 29, 2012. But because there are extra-governmental structural components to the deep state, it might be better to think of it as not just a milieu, but more analogous to an oligopolistic market.

57 See Chalmers A Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004), 218-19; Timothy Mitchell, Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (New York: Verso Books, 2011), 212.

58 Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 6.

59 Glenn Greenwald, “Mike McConnell, the WashPost & the dangers of sleazy corporatism,” Salon, March 29, 2010.

60 George H. W. Bush was an adviser to Carlyle, which in its early days “backed a management-led buyout of Caterair and appointed George W Bush to the board” (Jamie Doward, “Bush Sr's Carlyle Group Gets Fat On War And Conflict,” The Observer, March 25, 2003.)

61 Lofgren, “ A Shadow Government Controls America.”

62 Booz Allen Hamilton’s headquarters is now in McLean, Virginia, close to the HQ of the CIA.

63 Art Kleiner, Booz Allen Hamilton: Helping Clients Envision the Future, (Old Saybrook, CT: Greenwich Publishing, 2004), 43.

64 John Prados, Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006.), 139. Cf. Christine N. Halili, Philippine History (Manila: Rex Book Store, 2004), 258 (Philippines land distribution).

65 Miles Copeland, The Game Player: the confessions of the CIA's original political operative (London: Aurum Press, 1989), 158.

66 Ephraim Kahana and Muhammad Suwaed, Historical dictionary of Middle Eastern intelligence (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009), 65 {“advisor”); Jack O'Connell, King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, (New York : W.W. Norton & Co., 2011), 20 (channel).

67 The BCCI Affair: BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence, Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by John Kerry and Hank Brown, December 1992; 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Print 102-140 (“agent”).

68 William D. Hartung, Prophets of war: Lockheed Martin and the making of the military-industrial complex (New York: Nation Books, 2011), 126.

69 Copeland, The Game Player, 231.

70 Copeland, The Game Player, 233.

71 Copeland, The Game Player, 239.

72 E.g. Evan Thomas, The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the CIA

 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 380.

73 Larry J. Kolb, Overworld: The Life and Times of a Reluctant Spy [New York: Riverhead/Penguin, 2004], 237-38. Cf. Copeland, The Game Player, 230, 262-63; Ronald Kessler, The Richest Man in the World: The Story of Adnan Khashoggi (New York: Warner Books), 300-01: “[O]n May 17, 1983, [Khashoggi] submitted to President Reagan a confidential ‘yellow paper’ [which] proposed an economic aid program similar to the 1949 Marshall Plan developed by the U.S. for Europe. Called a Peace Fund, it would provide up to $300 billion in regional economic aid from the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to Israel and any Arab country that signed a peace treaty with it.”

74 Peter Dale Scott, “Deep Events and the CIA's Global Drug Connection,” 911truth.org, October 12, 2008; American War Machine, 160-65.

75The BCCI Affair.” Khashoggi’s status had declined, but by no means vanished. As late as 2003, Khashoggi was negotiating with Richard Perle, a member of the Cheney-Rumsfeld clique who at the time was still Chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, to invest considerable Saudi money in Perle's company Trireme (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, 3/17/03).

76 Copeland, Game Player, 239; cf. 2128.

77 Kessler, The Richest Man in the World, 84, 188, etc.; Scott, American War Machine, 158-62.

78 “Moss, Edward K. #172 646,” CIA Memo of 19 April 1967, NARA #104-10122-10006; CIA Inspector General’s Report on CIA-Mafia Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro, NARA # 104-10213-10101, p. 38. Cf. memo of 7 November 1962 in CIA’s Edward K. Moss folder, p. 26, NARA #1994.05.03.10:54:53:780005.

79 “Manuel Antonio Varona,” FBI Memorandum of January 16, 1961 to A. H. Belmont, p. 2, 105-76826-20; NARA #124-90055-10139. Cf. “Moss, Edward K. #172 646,” CIA Memo of 14 May 1973, in Meyer Lansky Security File, p. 9, NARA #1993.08.13.17:42:12:560059; CIA letter of 16 December 1960 to FBI, FBI file 105-76826-18; NARA #124-90055-10133. The CIA itself had notified the FBI on December 16, 1960, that Julia “Cellino” had advised that her brothers “have long been associated in the narcotics and white slavery rackets in Cuba (CIA letter of 16 December 1960 to Director, FBI, FBI File 105-76826-18; NARA #124-90055-10133; apparently no copy of this letter has been released from CIA files).

80 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 29 (Yassin), 275–78 (Khashoggi). A friend of Khashoggi’s, Larry Kolb, reports that Khashoggi himself essentially corroborated the story that Khashoggi and John Kennedy had a friendship in the 1950s that “evolved primarily out of whoring together” (Larry J. Kolb, Overworld: The Life and Times of a Reluctant Spy [New York: Riverhead/Penguin, 2004], 236). The woman who destroyed the presidential aspirations of Senator Gary Hart in 1987 was one of Khashoggi’s many girls.

81 Anthony Summers with Robbyn Swan, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon (New York: Viking, 2000), 283. Cf. Kessler, The Richest Man in the World, 171: Khashoggi told the prosecutors “that he churned millions through the tiny [Rebozo] bank to win favor with the president.”

82 Investigative reporter Jim Hougan reports the incredulity of congressional investigators that Lockheed was the only large corporation not to have made a contribution to Nixon’s 1972 election campaign (Hougan, Spooks, 457–58.

83 Scott, Road to 9/11, 35; citing Summers, Arrogance of Power, 283; Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003), 43. (Baer reports the year of the briefcase as 1968, not 1972.) Kolb (“unequivocally, and from personal experience”) denies the briefcase story (Overworld, 299).

84 Scott, Deep politics and the death of JFK, 234-39.

85 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 129, 160-61. When Hughes flew from Las Vegas to the Paradise Island casino in the Bahamas (where Edward Moss’s brother-in-law Eddie Cellini was casino manager, he did so on a Khashoggi plane. (Kessler, Richest Man, 149-50).

86 Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 242, 252; Jim Hougan, Spooks, 398. Cf. Denny Walsh, New York Times, January 21, 1974; Gerth, in Government by Gunplay, 137-39.

87 Block, Masters of Paradise, 94-96; Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 244-45. Benguet Mines have also been associated with Yamashita’s gold (Seagrave, Gold Warriors, 147; Scott, American War Machine, 322n15).

88 Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 244-45, 253-54.

89 Scott, American War Machine, 71-72. Cf. Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1980: “In 1951, Mr. Helliwell helped set up and run Sea Supply Corp., a concern controlled by the CIA as a front. For almost 10 years, Sea Supply was used to supply huge amounts of weapons and equipment to 10,000 Nationalist Chinese [KMT] troops in Burma as well as to Thailand’s police.”

90 In the course of Operation Safehaven, the U.S. Third Army took an SS major “on several trips to Italy and Austria, and, as a result of these preliminary trips, over $500,000 in gold, as well as jewels, were recovered” (Anthony Cave Brown, The Secret War Report of the OSS [New York: Berkeley, 1976], 565-66).

91 Who's who in Finance and Industry, Marquis Who's Who, 1979, 568.

92 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 238-41; Scott, American War Machine, 161-62.

93 The operation kept the name “Safari Club” even after moving from Khashoggi’s Club to a permanent headquarters in Cairo.

94 Ibrahim Warde, The price of fear: the truth behind the financial war on terror (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 133. Cf. Lacey, Inside the Kingdom, 66, 72, 76.

95 Christopher Byron, "The Senate look at BCCI,” New York Magazine, October 28, 1991, 20–21.

96 Lacey, Inside the Kingdom, 66. Cf. John Cooley, Unholy Wars (London: Pluto Press, 1999), 24-27.

97 Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, bad Muslim:  America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror (New York: Pantheon Books 2004), 84.

98 Mamdani, Good Muslim, bad Muslim, 85.

99 Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to terror: the rogue CIA and the legacy of America's private intelligence network (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 61.

100 Trento, Prelude to terror, 104-05. Kevin Phillips also notes that  “Bush cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence” (Kevin Phillips, “The Barrelling Bushes,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004).

101 Trento, Prelude to terror, 113-14.

102 Phillips, “The Barrelling Bushes,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004.

103 There is no published evidence that Copeland was involved in the Safari Club covert operations. But it may be significant that Copeland’s activity of advising the Egyptian Army became after the creation of the Safari Club a franchise of a “private” U.S. firm, J.J. Cappucci and Associates, owned by Theodore Shackley (Trento, Prelude to Terror, 150, 247).

104 Trento, Prelude to Terror, 139.

105 There is no published evidence that Copeland was involved in the Safari Club covert operations. But it may be significant that Copeland’s activity of advising the Egyptian Army became after the creation of the Safari Club a franchise of a “private” U.S. firm, J.J. Cappucci and Associates, owned by Theodore Shackley (Trento, Prelude to Terror, 150, 247).

106 Theodore Draper, A Very Thin Line (New York: Hill and Wang, 1991), 129, 131. Cf. Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Every spy a prince: the complete history of Israel's intelligence community (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), 261; Mayn Katz, Song of Spies (Heliographica Press, 2005) 136-37.

107 Samuel Segev ; translated by Haim Watzman, The Iranian triangle : the untold story of Israel's role in the Iran-Contra (New York: The Free Press, 1988), 10. For the collaboration of Greenspun, Schwimmer and Meyer Lansky in gun-running, see Leonard Slater, The Pledge (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1970). Paul Helliwell may have been part of this operation; see Scott, American War Machine, 71, 164.

108 Copeland, The Game Player, 263.

109 Kolb, Overworld, 246.

110 Kolb, Overworld, 247.

111 Iran-Contra Affair, Report of the congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra Affair (U.S. Congress, H. Rept. No. 100-433, S. Rept. No. 100-216), 164.

112 Kerry-Brown Report, Part 11, “BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence.”

113 Kerry-Brown Report, Part 11, “BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence.”

114 Dan Bawley, Corporate Governance and Accountability: What Role for the Regulator, Director, and Auditor? (Westport, CT: Quorum, 1999). 37.

115 Bawley, Corporate Governance and Accountability, 37.

116Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world.” New Scientist, October 24, 2011.

117 Scott, American War Conspiracy, 163; quoting from Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 384 (“ties”).

118 Alan A. Block and Constance A. Weaver, All is clouded by desire: global banking, money laundering, and international organized crime (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 36-37.

119Saudi prince 'received arms cash',” BBC, June 7, 2007. It is unclear whether payments continued after 2001, when the UK signed the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention, making such overpayments illegal.

120 Robert Lacey, Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 108.

121 Trento, Prelude to Terror, 102.

122 Amy B. Zegart, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1999), 189; citing Christopher Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 172; see also Church Committee, Final Report, Book 4, 28-29.

123 Former Turkish President and Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel commented that “In our country… there is one deep state and one other state…. The state that should be real is the spare one, the one that should be spare is the real one” (Jon Gorvett, “Turkey’s ‘Deep State’ Surfaces in Former President’s Words, Deeds in Kurdish Town,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2006); quoted in Scott, American War Machine, 24.


Top updates

Bulletin Latest Past week Past month
Google Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

The Deep State 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015

[Apr 21, 2017] The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
"... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
"... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
"... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
"... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
"... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
"... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
"... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
"... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
"... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
"... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
"... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
"... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
"... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
"... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
"... or there will be WW III. ..."
Apr 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
> Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

On April 15th, Zero Hedge bannered "Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.

This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine's two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed "Svoboda" meaning "Freedom" so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of "second homes".

Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America's current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a "limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which "could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience 'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about it.

The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists

April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.

April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe

On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".

April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago, on 8 April 2016, "CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent for global empire - to include Russia.)

Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war.

Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that. It won't exist.

Shemp 4 Victory -> Crash Overide , Apr 20, 2017 10:56 PM

Fred Reed knocks one out of the park:

First Transgender President: Trump Becomes Hillary http://www.unz.com/freed/first-transgender-president-trump-becomes-hillary/

Luc X. Ifer -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 20, 2017 11:24 PM

False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.

[...

  • Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

    ...]

    http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/

  • Luc X. Ifer -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.

    https://www.rt.com/news/340588-hypersonic-warhead-sarmat-tested/

    winged -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    If that time truly comes, make sure you know who's really responsible.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

    [Apr 21, 2017] Since Obama appointed Derugulating Larry , Tax-evading Timmy and Too-big-to-jail Eric , maybe those appointments were not that good

    Apr 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason , April 20, 2017 at 02:31 AM
    It seems Paul Krugman isn't the economist who doesn't necessarily agree with Sanders all the time.

    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.de/2017/04/personnel-is-policy-presidential.html

    Still, all this really shows is how incredibly dysfunctional the ancient US system is. Time for a constitutional renewal process.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> reason ... , April 20, 2017 at 03:54 AM
    (Shocking stuff, no?)

    'For example, late in the Obama administration the board that is supposed to oversee the US Postal Service had zero members out of the nine possible appointments. The reported reason is that Senator Bernie Sanders put a hold on all possible appointees, as a show of solidarity with postal workers. If it isn't obvious to you how Sanders preventing President Obama from appointing new board members would influence the US Postal Service in the directions that Sanders would prefer, given that President Trump could presumably appoint all nine members of the board, you are not alone.'

    Timothy Taylor
    conversableeconomist@gmail.com

    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 20, 2017 at 07:25 AM
    Since Obama appointed "Derugulatin' Larry", "Tax-evadin' Timmy" and "Too-big-to-jail Eric", maybe those appointments weren't very good.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Libya - More War And Reconciliation

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7 'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial terms!

    Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in Africa?

    Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost weekly.

    All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to achieve forward progress for Libya's future.

    The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and totally unrealistic to say the least.

    A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority.

    These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's, in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene. This is becoming a realistic proposition.

    It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.

    The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend: In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.

    While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.

    However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to dictatorship.

    This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as the example, the model for Libya.

    The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure or punishment.

    Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course, Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern Libyan tribes.

    Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.

    If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!


    bigger

    Let us hope finally for a peaceful conclusion to the tragedy that has been Libya for these past six years.

    Thomas Bargatzky | Apr 19, 2017 5:38:53 AM | 2
    AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the killing of Gaddafi.
    Jeff | Apr 19, 2017 5:40:38 AM | 3
    If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing seem on the agenda.
    And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or social networks.
    guidoamm | Apr 19, 2017 7:02:37 AM | 4
    Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.

    Few will remember that whilst the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported far and wide by the international press too.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 7:49:10 AM | 5
    i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together. they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime - in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves. show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how war criminals must be treated.
    Alieu | Apr 19, 2017 7:51:35 AM | 6
    Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore. That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle East.

    Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as if that was their plan all along...

    Mina | Apr 19, 2017 8:05:48 AM | 7
    The colonial language used by the EU and others is precisely what fuels people to join Djihadists movements. Is it on purpose?
    Eugene | Apr 19, 2017 8:52:29 AM | 8
    Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying: "what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror" birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:53:15 AM | 9
    Alieu 6

    We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM. It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and suffering.

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:56:08 AM | 10
    Re: the photo
    Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not conform.
    Greenbean950 | Apr 19, 2017 10:20:02 AM | 11
    AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa). Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new headquarters in Stuttgart.

    I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.

    jawbone | Apr 19, 2017 10:26:49 AM | 12
    How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.

    The MCM will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own, those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and over.

    And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.

    Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria. The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad government did attack their own supporters with sarin.

    It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.

    Which is probably the whole point.

    canuck | Apr 19, 2017 11:12:43 AM | 13
    Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of propaganda.

    Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.

    Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over, Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.

    Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.

    Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO and their useful mercenary monsters.

    The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM | 14
    What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is. Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.

    Where do Trump & Sessions stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First" rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and Syria for the Saudi pricks.

    Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why? But I expected different at this venue. Not really.

    9/11 Families File Complaint with Department of Justice

    On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").

    In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full complaint here: http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf

    james | Apr 19, 2017 11:57:08 AM | 17
    thanks richard for these periodic updates..

    i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi in forming a gov't and coalition.

    @7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 12:05:54 PM | 18
    Among the west's successes in Libya is the return of slavery. That's not in the US MSM news even though it has made it to DW/Guardian.
    Mike Maloney | Apr 19, 2017 12:11:21 PM | 19
    Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting Haftar. Then France issues a statement yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
    AtaBrit | Apr 19, 2017 2:34:51 PM | 20
    Fascinating article.
    Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own hands - A fundemental right!
    But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly damning indictment of the West's actions!
    It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
    Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles, Richard.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 6:54:49 PM | 21

    Good news! Yemenis shoot down Saudi Black Hawk, at least 12 Saudi troops killed
    smuks | Apr 19, 2017 7:07:54 PM | 22
    Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some sort of national unity agreement.

    Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.

    telescope | Apr 19, 2017 8:17:58 PM | 24
    Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing year.

    As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.

    Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable denouement.

    Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy. Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 9:18:47 PM | 25
    @24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'

    the whole thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'

    as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would set vis-à-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 9:32:45 PM | 26
    Any news on the Great Man Made River?
    Pft | Apr 20, 2017 12:06:57 AM | 27
    Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did. The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that the powers that be care much about anything else.
    jfl | Apr 20, 2017 12:27:05 AM | 28
    @26 pp

    no news. i have these links if anyone is unfamiliar ...

    Libya's "Water Wars" and Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River Project
    War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:11:57 AM | 29
    #27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.

    As of today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:18:23 AM | 30
    Mike, in Libya France has had a hand in two camps: with Haftar when in relation with some military deals with the Gulf but from the start, when it comes to their MB business plan, with the Benghazi militias
    http://international.minbarlibya.com/2016/11/06/french-emirati-airbase-in-libya-supporting-khalifa-haftar-operations/
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/07/21/u-n-sanctioned-libyan-military-helicopter-containing-french-troops-crashes-in-libya/
    claudio | Apr 20, 2017 2:50:12 PM | 31
    b, the name of the italian city is LUCCA
    Curtis | Apr 20, 2017 2:53:09 PM | 32
    Mina 30
    I believe the initial oil deals the NTC signed were with France. But according to this, Qatar played a part, too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/25/libya-oil-deals-transparent-scrutiny

    In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries. Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/15/libya-national-army-oil-ports-sidra-ras-lanuf-russia-us

    In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi gone.

    Sabotage | Apr 20, 2017 3:03:51 PM | 33
    It seems WWIII has just started. Sorry boys, no Pax Germana for you. Again.
    #Crymeariver.
    Tudaloo!

    [Apr 20, 2017] Bill Binney explodes the Russia witchhunt

    Mar 04, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve their spying access.

    Frank Oak 3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots​ crimes going viral

    Marija Djuric 3 weeks ago Bill Binney should be head of the NSA

    Nancy M 3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue

    John 3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Bill Maher Interviews Bill Binney NSA Whistleblower Obama Worst Than Bush! Impeach Them ALL!

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Alex B 8 months ago

    This man is definitely a patriot in the strictest sense

    [Apr 20, 2017] NSA Whistleblower Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Who knew that the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Ethercruiser 11 year ago

    Great interview, thanks RT. I knew most of the material in this interview for years now, but it's good for it to get out whatever way possible. Hope you continue doing more such great interviews.

    jake gittes 1 year ago

    RT? Imagine the Russian equivalent? Golly, NSA out of control? Who knew? Who knew that the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" .

    If you were in prison for the last 15 yrs you would know that NSA security in triplicate is just doing what they've always been doing except that PRISM, restarted in 2007, is just updated software.

    Jim Jimmy 2 years ago

    there is one main reason they collect all information and target everyone, even members of congress and people like Angela merkel. If they have personal information on these powerful people there comes the chance to blackmail them. "vote this way on this" "consent to this policy". It's political leverage

    Fighting Words 3 weeks ago

    It's called POLICE STATE.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Oliver Stone Rages Against The Deep States Wonderful Job Of Throwing America Into Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
    "... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
    "... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
    "... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
    "... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
    "... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
    "... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :

    "we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."

    And strongly rejected the establishment's "the Russians are coming" narrative shortly after the election and correctly forecast that it wouldn't be long before the deep state pushed Trump into an anti-Kremlin position...

    "As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...

    I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald Trump . "

    Stone was correct and in a Facebook post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's wilful ignorance).

    "So It Goes"

    I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.

    It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.

    It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he's clearly winning the civil war?

    No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.

    Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?"). No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'

    No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something far more sinister waits in the background .

    Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.

    Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

    FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM

    Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will cause any trouble. /s

    gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.

    VIS MAIOR -> gregga777 •Apr 19, 2017 7:53 PM

    135 000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties ... 1000 years ban for usa on OL games and other + forever ban on all !

    they kill own 135 000 + thousand more after in usa from depresions, alchdrugs.. + 4 milions !!!! asians what fuckretard nations cancer is usa ..

    please delete usa from this planet ..PLEASE

    Tothguy1948 -> Savyindallas •Apr 19, 2017 11:43 PM

    well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.

    yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that

    his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand.

    Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/psychological-warfare-and-propaganda.html

    peterk •Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really care about anything too much.

    he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as he isnt all that bright, so he just

    moves along when things get tough.

    he betrayed the USA

    Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    A very simple question.

    Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change? Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in favor of the U.S.

    Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.

    Mr. Stone is right.

    Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM

    Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.

    We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be abandoned like the Coliseum.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell: Russian meddling in US election is the political equivalent of 9/11

    Really agitated Hillary supporter...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.businessinsider.com

    Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.

    Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and 2013, told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed in a new CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack on our very democracy."

    "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11."

    [Apr 19, 2017] Ex-CIA Directors kill Russians in Syria comment reveals neocon influence

    Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never was in field operations
    Notable quotes:
    "... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
    "... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
    "... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
    "... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
    "... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
    "... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
    "... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
    "... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Op-Edge 'Ex-CIA Director's 'kill Russians in Syria' comment reveals neocon influence' Published time: 13 Aug, 2016 12:53 Edited time: 14:38

    I want to scare Assad Mike Morell (Aug 8, 2016) Charlie Rose

    Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?

    Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.

    "We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price," Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way that "Moscow would get the message."

    Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's "Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other tantalizing bits of information.

    'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing #Clintonhttps://t.co/qd21Klts2Npic.twitter.com/Otcuwniwxw

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 9, 2016

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning?

    John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W. Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it.

    Ray McGovern: What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him.

    JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters. Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.

    #WatchingTheHawks SoundCloud Episode 44.2 is here of our best segments! @TabethaWatching@TyrelWatchinghttps://t.co/dxYcjCww42

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 13, 2016

    RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria?

    JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.

    This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding like that? What is his motivation for doing this?

    RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on 11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go? It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [Apr 19, 2017] A Lawless Plan to Target Syrias Allies

    Notable quotes:
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
    "... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
    "... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking – was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.

    On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan" for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive, too.

    Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying to help Morell explain what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

    In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    In the follow-up interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.

    Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in the world).

    Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.

    The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.

    But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.

    What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.

    Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton.

    A Slight Imprecision?

    Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."

    TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

    Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change" in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional government that represents all of the Syrian people.

    "That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries, in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.

    "And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.

    "So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition. And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)

    Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on the ground."

    Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.

    "So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)

    "You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here, just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of this.

    "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it."

    Acts of Illegal War

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."

    Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.

    Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.

    However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.

    Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the arming and training of anti-government rebels (including some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria (aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish rebels.

    Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international law.

    And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists," except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously muddled thinking do we have here?

    One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington. And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to Moscow.

    A Fawning Audition

    Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

    Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think the public needs to know."

    And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie, I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus, I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust her word and I trust her judgment."

    Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?

    FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."

    For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity" and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.

    My Travails With Charlie

    Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA " (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

    The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary, "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation that had originally been extended to him.

    True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided to spare myself the trouble.

    The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto YouTube. It might be worth a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    [Apr 19, 2017] Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT \n

    300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.

      To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    [Apr 19, 2017] American jingoism -- during civil war Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved up to kill each other to a total of aboutone million KIA

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT \n

    100 Words @dearieme "Funny patriotism where they're most revved up to kill other Koreans". You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill fellow Britons. {You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill fellow Britons.}

    You could also say that about the 4 year long US Civil War.
    Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved up to kill each other to a total of about 785,000-1,000,000 KIA. Considering US population was about 20-25 million around then, that was huge number of dead.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Dear Washington the era of the false flag attack is now over

    Notable quotes:
    "... None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | theduran.com
    Not so long ago, using the term "false flag" immediately marked you as a "conspiracy theorist," – basically a nutcase not in touch with reality. Supposedly.

    In case anybody still doesn't know, a "false flag [attack/event]" is an incident perpetrated by one party (usually a state) either against itself or someone else, while making it appear that a third party is to blame.

    False flag events are far from a new idea. King Gustav III of Sweden staged an attack on one of his own outposts using soldiers in fake Russian uniforms, to provide a pretext for initiating war against Russia in 1788.

    In the Gleiwitz Incident , Nazi Germany apparently staged an attack on a German radio station, in order to blame Poland and provide propaganda supporting the decision to go to war.

    However, it is the United States which, in the 20th and 21st centuries, has been most frequently accused of perpetrating false flag events.

    The 1898 Spanish-American war started after a US battleship, the Maine, mysteriously blew up in Havana harbor . The cause was never conclusively proven, but Spain was immediately blamed, and Congress declared war. (Nobody apparently asked what a US battleship was doing parked in another country's harbor in the first place.)

    Operation Northwoods was a plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted to President John F. Kennedy in 1962, proposing various scenarios for faking terrorist attacks on the US and blaming them on Cuba. Kennedy rejected the plan.

    Many consider the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964, which was used to introduce US ground troops into Vietnam, to have been a false flag. And millions of people world wide do not believe the official narrative of what occurred during the 9-11 attacks.

    When the United States accused the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, of unleashing a sarin gas attack on civilians in the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib province of Syria on April 4th – an incident which brought him no advantage, but played directly to the advantage of his enemies – the alternative media sphere immediately began crying foul.

    Twitter exploded with indications that the event was staged, with so-called "white helmets" humanitarian workers caught in multiple compromising positions:

    However, the proof in social media was only the first blow. None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned:

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/bACg_VPECmk

    His statement was followed by an extended interview given by Syrian President Assad, whose reasoned responses ripped to sheds the accusations of his accusers:

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/Syyq7zbTuTA

    These public statements by two leading world statesmen immediately added impetus to the claims in alternative media that a false flag attack had indeed occurred.

    Then, in a clear message to the United States, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov followed up his April 12th meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, by meeting with the foreign ministers of Iran and Syria in Moscow only two days later, April 14th – a clear show of solidarity.

    This followed Tillerson's demand at the G7 in Lucca that Russia should "reconsider" its alliance with Iran and Syria.

    At the press conference afterward, Lavrov stated about the alleged chemical attack:

    There is growing evidence that this was staged – meaning the incident with the use of chemical weapons in Idlib province.

    What makes the false flag at Khan Shaykhun unlike previous false flags is the speed with which it was exposed – both on the internet using the alleged footage itself, and possibly for the first time, by other state parties (Russia and Syria) opposed to the agenda the perpetrators seek to advance.

    Now "false flag" has essentially entered the normal political lexicon.

    And normalizing awareness of what a false flag is, along with decreasing acceptance of it as a state tactic, essentially means it will be increasingly difficult to succeed with one in the future.

    Thus, it can be said that the era in which government orchestrated false flags can be carried out with a high chance of success is effectively over. Both modern communication media (i.e. the internet and smart phones) and risk of exposure by opposing governments will make it high-risk, low reward-undertaking.

    That is not to say false flags will not continue to happen. They will. After all, the deep state apparatus appears both highly resistant to change, and severely lacking in originality. But such events will be increasingly less likely to be successful in convincing observers that the party they intend to implicate is the one to blame.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Blame Putin! scheme is much older then recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
    "... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
    "... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility.

    Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.

    -The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.

    -The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in California.

    Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died.

    -Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.

    Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.

    -The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.

    Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Clinton was always a sclezy dealer on word of whom only fool can rely

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Agent76 , April 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT \n

    October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton

    Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49319

    [Apr 17, 2017] The pot calling the kettle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
    "... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
    "... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
    "... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
    "... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
    "... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
    "... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
    "... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
    "... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    From: A Lesson in Moscow About Trump-Style 'Alternative Truth' - The New York Times by Jim Rutenberg >

    Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which, the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.

    As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole.

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.

    Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream media.

    On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.

    One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.

    When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.

    As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."

    It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with any success.

    While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing on his turf, where he excels.

    Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the main arbiter of truth.

    While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.

    Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon, would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)

    ... ... ...

    Alexandra Odynova contributed research.

    for-the-record , April 17, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:

    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops

    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.

    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    Altai , April 17, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @for-the-record Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:


    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.

    WorkingClass , April 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT \n
    I know it's bullshit. I read it in the New York Times.

    The NYT is an enemy of the human race.

    Assad didn't do it. Just like he didn't do it last time. Just like he will not have done it next time.

    El Dato , April 17, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Altai

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more, poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!

    It all went south of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein. Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan). There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.

    After the 9/11-Anthrax events it was of course full neocon time and everyone was on the same track for foreign land adventurism. By hook or by crook. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Johnny F. Ive , April 17, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT \n
    The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.

    Also VIPS had American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.

    If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to support Putin against his enemies.

    Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination. Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in). What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did would risk losing their job.

    The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable politicians.

    How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over outer space instead.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Why North Korea Needs Nukes - And How To End That

    Notable quotes:
    "... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
    "... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
    "... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
    "... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
    "... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
    "... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
    "... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
    "... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
    "... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
    "... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
    "... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
    "... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
    "... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
    "... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
    "... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
    "... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
    "... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
    "... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
    "... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
    "... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
    "... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
    "... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
    "... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
    "... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
    "... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    "... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
    "... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
    "... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
    "... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
    "... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
    "... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
    "... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
    "... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
    "... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
    "... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
    "... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
    "... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
    "... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
    "... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
    "... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
    "... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
    "... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
    "... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
    "... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
    "... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
    "... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
    "... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
    "... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
    "... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
    "... Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault - ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security? The aggressor nation. Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international peace and security?? What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria? frances | Apr 14, 2017 9:02:27 PM | 113 According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. ..."
    "... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
    "... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
    "... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
    "... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
    "... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
    "... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
    "... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
    "... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
    "... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
    "... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
    "... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
    "... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
    "... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
    "... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
    "... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
    "... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
    "... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
    "... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
    "... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
    "... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
    "... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
    "... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
    "... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
    "... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
    "... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
    "... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
    "... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
    "... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
    "... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!

    As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these fact up.

    No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 9:30:57 AM | 2
    Bravo b. Bravo.

    Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military 'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades, a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual' 'alert'.

    Maintaining heightened readiness, to Stand To! , stand ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed, eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 9:50:19 AM | 3
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese most certainly do know what they're doing.

    Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
    Thank you, b!

    The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.

    The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed.

    BRF | Apr 14, 2017 10:07:06 AM | 5
    The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies.

    The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.

    This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world. End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.

    Mark Stoval | Apr 14, 2017 10:11:29 AM | 6
    No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did)

    The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)

    The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.

    God help us all.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:43 AM | 7
    Dead on, b.

    If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.

    Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

    Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8
    Hoarsewhisperer

    There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.

    China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 10:22:50 AM | 9
    @ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4

    All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor. Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. ' Vale, Pax Tecum '.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 10:31:30 AM | 10
    I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 10:35:14 AM | 11
    Chinese way of rebuking Trump
    "On the Korean Peninsula issue, it is not the one who espouses hasher rhetoric or raises a bigger fist that will win," Wang said.

    It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything.

    Lysander | Apr 14, 2017 10:39:27 AM | 12
    If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
    @ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.

    If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:48:53 AM | 14
    Lysander

    +1 on that.
    Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:39 AM | 15
    Trump throwing stones at the mother of all hornet nests. Wonder what this all does for Samsung and Hyundai stock prices.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 11:28:04 AM | 16
    thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
    WorldBLee | Apr 14, 2017 11:38:51 AM | 18
    Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.

    It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after all happened "for its own good."

    Tobin Paz | Apr 14, 2017 11:59:34 AM | 19
    If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS... would you have believed me?
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:02:37 PM | 20
    Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 12:13:11 PM | 21
    The Huge Moron has got himself into a situation now where China is mediating between the US and Korea.
    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:19:51 PM | 22
    Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.

    Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the 36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.

    China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
    LINK

    "World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of having small hands.

    And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 12:25:07 PM | 23
    Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8

    Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them, and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.

    A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
    And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.

    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:26:43 PM | 24
    and linked in the article is Democratic-Leader Pelosi 's tweet:

    President Trump's escalation on Syria, Saber-Rattling on North Korea Necessitate Immediate Congressional Scrutiny

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    somewhat late after Congress abandoned it's war powers to the past 4 presidents.

    Greg Bacon | Apr 14, 2017 12:33:42 PM | 25
    Why is NK our problem?

    NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.

    Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.

    So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 12:36:48 PM | 26
    For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A (actually, 2 2-hr interviews).

    Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 12:47:00 PM | 28
    Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.

    I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
    Hoarsewhispet

    IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.

    E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
    b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.

    Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level (thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.

    I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea. They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:00:32 PM | 31
    30

    Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 1:03:41 PM | 33
    @30
    You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding of the subject, pls listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A - that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:08:11 PM | 34
    @ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30

    Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in 1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese involvement.

    Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History' of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.

    If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives 'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
    And while we are studying this, the empire is making more plans.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-mattis-idUSKBN17G1C1
    U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Qatar and Djibouti starting on Tuesday, the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday.

    It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April 18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement said.
    .......

    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah. It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:11 PM | 38
    @ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36

    Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important 1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references, from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:

    b | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:38 PM | 39
    @E Ring 46Z Vet

    I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider nefarious reasons.

    I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.

    It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out of it.

    It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton had already renegaded on.

    chump change | Apr 14, 2017 1:39:08 PM | 40
    "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"

    Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.

    You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the poor, homeless and ill.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:41:42 PM | 41
    Followup to #38

    Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:

    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is There One At All?' thread. Cheers.

    Skip | Apr 14, 2017 1:43:49 PM | 42
    @30

    I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin, Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:52:11 PM | 43
    Air China to suspend some flights to North Korea http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/14/518018/Air-China-suspend-flights-North-Korea

    Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
    Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.

    At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.

    Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.

    So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:59 PM | 46
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37

    I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 1:57:01 PM | 47
    @37, Peter AU
    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she want to risk losing the access to US markets.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:08:37 PM | 48
    For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs, but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.

    Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49
    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50
    46) Not true
    PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends, Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between Tehran and Riyadh.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:14:53 PM | 52
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45

    Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)

    Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6 months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?

    To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 53
    SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now

    That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable. Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.

    In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.

    Rand report here. I had the title wrong in earlier posts. PDF can be read online or downloaded from the Rand Corp link
    Thinking Through The Unthinkable http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

    Monolycus | Apr 14, 2017 2:27:04 PM | 54
    Thank you, E Ring 46Z Vet @#30 for that.

    I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America" spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.

    I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result of it. I am in South Korea.

    Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all, so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:28:49 PM | 55
    The conclusion from a review of the book by SF Gate: "Neer has provided a valuable book that fills in historical gaps and sheds much-needed light on a history that many would rather forget ." [Emphasis mine] http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Napalm-by-Robert-M-Neer-4377836.php

    The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."

    However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 56
    @ Posted by: somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50

    Thanks for the link.

    This rejection was a while ago, 2015 or so? Or was there a new one after the general was given the top post? I had assumed things have changed since.

    Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:35:49 PM | 57
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52

    Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable' 6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ... China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign... fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation, or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.

    Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike (highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:45:17 PM | 58
    53 / Monolycus

    Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people, and you are calling people here crazy?

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:10 PM | 59
    The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests - the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPw26MeviQ

    As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:13 PM | 60
    Posted by: Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 55

    Dated April 14, 2017

    Another fresh link - 17 hours ago

    ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.

    Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.

    He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.

    "We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:56:20 PM | 61
    add to 59

    Egypt's cooperation is not that safe either

    In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example. In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family in the UAE.

    In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.

    The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.

    While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.

    ...

    Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated, Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.

    This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai. The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's camp.

    For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.

    Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:08 PM | 62
    The link to the book extract in the post which @karlof1 provided. The book is Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013

    The linked pages following the one above are about the extremely cruel effects of Napalm as used in Korea.

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:41 PM | 63
    Karlof1 @48, @54

    The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of WWII.

    The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants.

    The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:04:29 PM | 64
    @ outraged

    I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
    create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?

    Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.

    The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician.

    The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.

    I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take down the US.

    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.

    What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?


    US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines put out by these type think tanks.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:06:51 PM | 65
    @ Monolycus

    If you truly earnestly believe:

    The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because...

    following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left & Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.

    You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:14:00 PM | 66
    @52, Peter AU
    That is a good reason for the US to act now.

    From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone. Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are talking about.

    ronny | Apr 14, 2017 3:16:05 PM | 67
    Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report

    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.

    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170414000689

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:25:30 PM | 68
    @ Peter AU
    If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...

    If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?

    IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)

    Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ...

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:31:49 PM | 69
    Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about to kick off again.

    The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another 5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:37:12 PM | 70
    53/monolycos It is possible your opinion is not shared by South Koreans

    2003, report for congress South Korean Politics and Rising "Anti-Americanism": Implications for U.S. Policy Toward North Korea

    These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most, South Koreans.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:40:15 PM | 71
    You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:39 PM | 72
    add to 69
    Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations; few favor an outright withdrawal.
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:41 PM | 73
    @68, Peter AU
    The F-35 has put the US too far behind.

    It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:42:31 PM | 74
    Followup to 67
    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.

    "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.

    Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc ...

    Ike | Apr 14, 2017 3:50:58 PM | 75
    Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
    If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 3:51:40 PM | 76
    And again,

    US successfully test drops nuclear gravity bomb in Nevada https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/breaking-us-successfully-test-drops-nuclear-gravity-bomb/

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 77
    Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 76

    Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:06:09 PM | 79
    Peter AU--

    Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus, I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality.

    Yonatan @62--

    Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.

    Monolycus--

    The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which side did most of the murdering:

    "At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000' political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country, according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations into all this have scarcely begun...

    "When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...

    "The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...

    "...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world in October 1953...
    "At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...

    "...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...

    "...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...

    "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:10:21 PM | 80
    Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?

    Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM | 81
    Lawrence Wilkerson, a former U.S. Army colonel: U.S. Creating New Foes, Too Many To Handle
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/former-bush-chief-staff-u-s-creating-new-foes-many-handle/225999/
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:21:06 PM | 82
    Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.

    China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years it will become not only possible but highly probable.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:25:05 PM | 83
    Peter AU @79--

    US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify.

    It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force, then waging a war for conquest.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:02 PM | 84
    @Monolycus

    I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.

    But two remarks:

    byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started. The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.

    I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service in dependence of the media splash they create.

    There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many turned out to be false .

    Kim Jong-un had his dogs maul one of his uncles?
    Stripped naked, thrown into a cage and torn apart by 120 starving dogs: How Kim Jong Un had 'scum' uncle executed
    That story ran one way or another in every bigger western media. It was false. The uncle was executed but after a (sham) trial and with guns by a regular execution command.

    North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.

    Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend reportedly executed by firing squad
    Bad, bad boy. But later she turns up on live TV , smiling and laughing as ever.

    Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other stories above.

    North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged "communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage? Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?

    I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.

    Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.

    Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece he wrote about his 1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama is enlightening:

    Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent. 'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:46 PM | 85
    SmoothieX12 karlof1

    It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.

    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 4:43:41 PM | 86
    - North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.

    1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.

    2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would suggest such a move.

    3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.

    From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 4:45:58 PM | 87
    38 41 Outraged

    Thanks!
    Very relevant historical background.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:46:09 PM | 88
    @84, Peter AU.
    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold. It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 4:47:27 PM | 89
    Shadowbrokers just released NSA hacks for Windows Systems enabling kids to go to work over the Easter Weekend.

    NSA hacks include the Swift System.

    By the way, google "North Korean hackers" and have fun.

    Win | Apr 14, 2017 4:48:24 PM | 90
    @Monolycus

    Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here. To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely. Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea. Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint; it is not Kim Yong-Un.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 5:05:51 PM | 91
    @ Peter AU

    An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.

    So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is fired.

    For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers, sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from potential threats other than Indian border effectively.

    Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast. And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital 'green' 'parade only' militaries.

    What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?

    The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...

    The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?

    The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft, pilots, support crews and sailors ...

    @ From the Hague

    You are most welcome, a group effort.

    okie farmer | Apr 14, 2017 5:07:18 PM | 92
    link http://eng.tibet.cn/world/1481178463674.shtml
    b | Apr 14, 2017 5:21:19 PM | 93
    For those beating up on China (or applauding it) for suspending flights with NoKo.

    Air China clarifies ticket sales to blame for temporary flight cuts to Pyongyang; no suspension of services

    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:23:04 PM | 94
    Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before.

    Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.

    Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.

    I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured I will be blown away.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 5:33:25 PM | 95
    American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
    Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 96
    I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly the dumbest.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 5:45:36 PM | 97
    b - great responses to the naysayers here.. very informative as well. thank you..
    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:49:40 PM | 98
    B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.

    Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast provinces if there are as yet no plans.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 5:52:13 PM | 99
    mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the real US strategy?
    Syria, Korea, Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
    paul | Apr 14, 2017 6:40:24 PM | 101
    Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 7:00:05 PM | 102
    @or, @p au

    interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.

    i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think that war is rational in, literally, the end.

    i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types. the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes' of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming' might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money' based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their 'trades' in.

    i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?

    we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon, for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.

    thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 7:01:52 PM | 103
    Jen @94--

    Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable, easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format, www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings, http://www.ifstone.org/index.php

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 7:13:33 PM | 104
    I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick" using the white fleet to intimidate Japan:
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html

    Unfortunately, would appear that Trump actually wants to degrade North Korea's nuclear program using strategic bombers (B52, B-1b and B2) currently deployed at Guam (a rerun of the US attack on Iraq nuclear reactor?).
    https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/us-defcon-nuclear-threat-warning-increased-with-north-korea-on-verge-of-war/

    The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.

    U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see Superstation95 for photos).

    In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)

    Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:

    (1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;

    (2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;

    (3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens from South Korea;

    (4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.

    There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?) and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.

    North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.

    I hate to speculate on where the other nuclear bombs will be " delivered". Under a worst-case scenario it could result in some global cooling about 20% of that predicted http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full

    On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.

    It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA). Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?

    dh | Apr 14, 2017 7:15:01 PM | 105
    @104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.

    'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.

    blues | Apr 14, 2017 7:18:52 PM | 106
    I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:

    This is where this is going, I would guess:

    US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters' https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    But that's not all we're going to get:
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they are in North Korean airspace."
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees. Good job, eh?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 7:43:14 PM | 107
    @ blues
    I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the US, that can be abandoned if required.

    @ jfl

    I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.

    This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening.

    So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators ect.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 14, 2017 7:51:15 PM | 108
    TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday, front page reported on-line]

    IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous ­President ­Donald Trump has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean ­warmonger Kim Jong Un before he can push the ­button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!

    D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!

    "Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.

    Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.

    ====

    Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 7:53:30 PM | 109
    - MEDIA MATTERS had a VERY interesting take why we could see a US attack on North Korea:

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/13/punditry-syrian-airstrikes-encouraging-trump-escalate-tensions-north-korea/216023

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 8:27:18 PM | 110
    @109 p au

    i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst. and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play' to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?) to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 14, 2017 8:39:34 PM | 111
    @jfl #114:

    A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire.

    Julian | Apr 14, 2017 8:44:26 PM | 112
    Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault - ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security? The aggressor nation.

    Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international peace and security??

    What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?

    frances | Apr 14, 2017 9:02:27 PM | 113
    According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them if they are on the ocean floor.

    Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in sight.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:24:28 PM | 115
    A Russia missile cruiser arrived in Korea on April 11th:

    https://already-happened.com/2017/04/11/russian-guided-missile-cruiser-varyag-and-rfs-pechenga-have-arrived-at-port-of-busan-south-korea-today/

    DemiJohn | Apr 14, 2017 9:33:42 PM | 116
    Amazing how Kim Jung-un is demonized. Certainly a bully but there is much worse ... and Erdogan is untouchable.
    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:43:21 PM | 117
    blues @108

    Good point about the nuclear reactors.

    In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.

    An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and

    "Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as cesium-137, into the environment."

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WPF2kI61tt8

    http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/spent-fuel-damage-pool-criticality-accident

    It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone for hundreds of years.

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:07 PM | 118
    @125 username ... not your real name. my name is john francis lee. i've never understood people who hide behind 'clever' usernames.
    Alaric | Apr 14, 2017 10:17:31 PM | 119
    This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.

    i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and give him no way to look tuff.

    Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?

    marcus_lepidus | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:46 PM | 120
    Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:12:18 PM | 121
    129
    into sci-fi entertainment much?
    yesu | Apr 14, 2017 11:23:25 PM | 122
    @29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29


    ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.

    everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.

    it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.

    if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?) puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war lovers.

    where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?

    NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 14, 2017 11:33:03 PM | 123
    @127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.

    The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA: Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.

    "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.

    Kalen | Apr 14, 2017 11:34:00 PM | 124
    One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.

    Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands and waters.

    In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.

    But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:47:55 PM | 125
    Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 14, 2017 11:51:21 PM | 126
    Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:55:22 PM | 127
    continuing from 135

    Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 11:58:45 PM | 128
    "Deputy Defense Minister General of the Army of Russia, Dmitry Bulgakov has arrived in Khabarovsk Krai near North Korea to inspect troops."

    "Russia also moved military vehicles (Air Def) toward Vladivostok not far from the border with North Korea"

    Link also shows videos of Chinese units moving toward the North Korean border

    http://thesaker.is/news-brief-brics-joint-communique-troops-deployment-near-korean-peninsula/

    Circe | Apr 15, 2017 12:12:39 AM | 129
    If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 15, 2017 12:31:18 AM | 130
    This is going viral and so it should!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkj9UCHO0Tc
    denk | Apr 15, 2017 1:03:56 AM | 131
    so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's army' on the way to another killing spree. !

    i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.

    but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about the 'great leader'.
    during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.

    by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if only washington would accept him.

    wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington wish.

    then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man to get things done'

    hehhehe
    =============

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:10:32 AM | 132
    @ outraged.
    What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving 60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.

    Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
    Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.

    From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:20:07 AM | 133
    it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
    "As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress.
    ... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow sea.

    i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM | 134
    @145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets. B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality lenses' that I find useful.

    RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table' kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.

    Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick". Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for 6 long volumes.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 1:30:34 AM | 135
    North Korea's statement names the "Trump's administration serious military hysteria" This description is correct.
    blues | Apr 15, 2017 1:31:08 AM | 136
    Hmmm. Hmmm.

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    Zero Hedge -- Krunch Time for Korean Krackpot Despot, Kim Jong-Un: Missile Crisis Countdown Has Begun -- Apr 14,2017
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-14/krunch-time-korean-krackpot-despot-kim-jong-un-missile-crisis-countdown-has-begun

    Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead with his apparent plans.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    What if Pence doesn't make it out in time?

    Hmmm.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:34:21 AM | 137
    @146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...'

    but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's. the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.

    any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim really just the korean version of trump?

    an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:40:24 AM | 138
    151
    Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link, compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
    Julian | Apr 15, 2017 1:53:59 AM | 139
    Re: Posted by: Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 97

    If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps 9-10pm Monday night Korean time???

    Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.

    Anyone know - are US markets open on Monday?

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 2:05:06 AM | 140
    @151 tjk

    i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a whale chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.

    i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality', so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted 'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines', and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are few and getting fewer, by their own design.

    Pft | Apr 15, 2017 2:29:45 AM | 141
    @135 Peter AU

    The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed.

    The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms

    This is oversimplistic but time is short

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 15, 2017 2:31:02 AM | 142
    ...
    After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?
    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78

    That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking at this.

    1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
    2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems to have happened this year.

    michaelj72 | Apr 15, 2017 2:40:23 AM | 143
    we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/

    Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff

    .....But what would the result of such a strike be?

    For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for the long-suffering North Korean people.

    It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food. If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.

    In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.

    Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following such an ill-conceived attack......

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 2:51:26 AM | 144
    163
    "Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions."

    Just part of human nature. Very common throughout history.
    As technology increases, the scale increases.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:27:44 AM | 145
    A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).

    ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way).

    Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.

    Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with a bad haircut."

    The world is so fucked up.

    okie farmer | Apr 15, 2017 3:28:25 AM | 146
    The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
    "I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses, and miraculously healed on its own.
    But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff

    https://youtu.be/FMArIc5Hn_g

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:30:53 AM | 147
    I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.

    Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside culture. Its an insane outlook.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:37:42 AM | 148
    Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant missiles - blazing hooorahh.

    No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes, would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.' What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious cake as consolation?

    b | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:16 AM | 150
    @Outraged - deleted a bunch of your comments with long list of military equipment no one is interested in

    provide links to such stuff, don't copy it.

    --

    @all - deleted a bunch of nonsensical one-liners and some sniping at each other that I considered off topic. Go back to kindergarten if you need that.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:27 AM | 151
    LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure. It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
    b | Apr 15, 2017 4:02:52 AM | 152
    @all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
    ---

    The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.

    Video of the 3 hour parade from NoKo TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxM0AUsh_w The interesting mil stuff starts around 2h 14m with the leg swinging girls (intentionally?)

    Some remarks on the off-road capable TEL North Korea's 2017 Military Parade Was a Big Deal. Here Are the Major Takeaways

    Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover, the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against coercive removal.
    (will put the above in a post update)
    ashley albanese | Apr 15, 2017 4:31:45 AM | 153
    smoothie X2 82
    Ah ! what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique , secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out !
    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154
    Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.

    The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South.

    For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors (Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea.

    The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign.

    Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 5:17:39 AM | 155
    @154

    Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember that Osprey crash a couple months back?

    It all adds up.

    PavewayIV | Apr 15, 2017 5:24:32 AM | 156
    oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the years.

    South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.

    Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea, but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.

    I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:15:41 AM | 157
    i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors. can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think, as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow' southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.

    who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.

    treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.

    now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.

    atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.

    V. Arnold | Apr 15, 2017 6:36:59 AM | 158
    Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird) will have to pack up his toys and go home.
    I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 6:43:12 AM | 159
    Posted by: oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154

    From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North was/would be total desaster.

    It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.

    German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach" policy.

    The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 7:14:42 AM | 160
    @159 sb, 'South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. '

    you win your bet...

    The top export destinations of South Korea are
    China ($131B),
    the United States ($72.7B),
    Vietnam ($26.6B),
    Hong Kong ($26.3B) and
    Japan ($25.5B).

    The top import origins are
    China ($90.1B),
    Japan ($44.6B),
    the United States ($42.7B),
    Germany ($20.2B) and
    Saudi Arabia ($17.7B).

    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161
    @160 jfl

    Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source seems to be posting figures for 2015).

    Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question of who holds power in South Korea really is.

    Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.

    The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun (e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 7:57:38 AM | 162
    S.Koreans file petition with constitutional court against THAAD deployment
    SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.

    Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before submitting the constitutional appeal.

    According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.

    Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation.

    Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs and the presidential office.

    The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national security council of the presidential office.

    "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.

    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:17:00 AM | 163
    So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.

    The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.

    It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how dearly they need all that 'protection'.

    Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?

    (on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up, but rather willing to up the ante...)

    col from oz | Apr 15, 2017 8:26:51 AM | 164
    Beautifully written 157 jfl esp NOW
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:32:42 AM | 165
    @ oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161

    Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!

    The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!

    (President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)

    Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 8:59:05 AM | 166
    b
    I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more saints in the WWII period than the US.

    I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008. Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other deals.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 9:01:20 AM | 167
    somebody jfl
    Excellent points. What South Korea wants should be paramount to the issue of what the US should do. Seoul is very vulnerable.
    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 9:06:26 AM | 168
    smuks

    For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:18:57 AM | 169
    @Hoarsewhisperer

    According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.

    This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.

    I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to me that could only have been fomented there.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:23:57 AM | 170
    @ oneoffposter

    Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to keep US puppets in line.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:29:41 AM | 171
    @161 oop,

    yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything, up until thaad.

    @162, sb,

    maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality ... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these days.

    @167 curtis

    they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination. the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly not for koreans, north or south.

    @170 gravatomic

    i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down : she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ... and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.

    Monolycus | Apr 15, 2017 10:32:57 AM | 172
    @b

    I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree. I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.

    I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,) it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.

    dh | Apr 15, 2017 10:33:07 AM | 173
    @158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.

    The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going the way of Iraq and Libya.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39607343

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:47:18 AM | 174
    @168 anon

    was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't? if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights ... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.

    it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese - not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?

    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:03:02 AM | 175
    jfl 137


    here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
    'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
    thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.

    whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
    to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
    350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
    'star war' redux ?
    by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform !


    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:09:48 AM | 176

    lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.

    well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
    first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
    she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest market.
    hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.

    anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
    the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2 memorial ceremony in 2015.
    mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
    i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.

    so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring' etc ?

    some observers think so.

    we shall see.

    [1]
    Xi extended a particularly warm welcome to Park, who attended the ceremony over the objections of Japan and the U.S.
    http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Ties-between-Park-Xi-shape-East-Asia-diplomacy

    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 11:27:54 AM | 177
    jfl / 174

    Re: US provocations

    Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.

    There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
    China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving a green light to:

    China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html

    The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.

    juliania | Apr 15, 2017 12:13:45 PM | 178
    Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.

    Peace to all.

    Rick | Apr 15, 2017 2:37:35 PM | 179
    Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.

    I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?

    mauisurfer | Apr 15, 2017 3:14:19 PM | 180

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    From Foreign Policy Magazine (behind the paywall)

    The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.

    By Doug Bandow
    April 13, 2017

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population, the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small, impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.

    Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically, fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where it does not belong.

    Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II. Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.

    But that world disappeared long ago.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.

    The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S. withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.

    South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s, when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.

    Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.

    So why is America still there?

    One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II." Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula. The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.

    More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.

    Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently. The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop (and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.

    But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.

    South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

    Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the North's threats.

    But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.

    Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts. The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness to act.

    A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible. And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed, absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.

    As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover, small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by big powers.

    The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing on its own two feet.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 4:50:38 PM | 181
    @172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience. Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.

    Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.

    I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though.

    Any thoughts? I appreciate your response greatly.

    Kalen | Apr 15, 2017 5:01:37 PM | 182
    What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
    karlof1 | Apr 15, 2017 5:19:16 PM | 183
    Rick @179--

    I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book. However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional testimony.

    Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide of jews, gypsies and others.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:21:08 PM | 184
    @ b 150

    Apologies. Understood. Will comply.

    Re b @ 152 & post update

    Heres an 8min38Sec Youtube of the military personnel & 'hardware' portion only:

    North Korea Holds Massive Military Parade 'Day of the Sun Parade' in Pyongyang ( Show Case Missile )
    dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185
    @182 Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3.

    At the same time Xi told Kim not to provoke Donald i.e. no nuclear test. Let them think they've won.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:42:46 PM | 186
    @ Posted by: dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185

    Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick ready, just in case.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:26:20 PM | 187
    @180 mauisurfer

    the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy' a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...

    The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
    Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 7:05:05 PM | 188
    @ Anon1 168

    Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 7:11:02 PM | 189
    Looks like NK may have done a missile test. Failed apparently.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-missile-idUSKBN17H0NL
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704161052679707-north-korea-fails-misile-launch/

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 8:10:03 PM | 190
    there's a brief summary at the nation of the most germane us-north korean history by Burce Cumings, on 23 March This Is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations .
    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 1:21:37 AM | 191
    Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
    Gavan NcCormack
    Gregory Elich
    Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
    I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it down.
    Mr Reynard | Apr 16, 2017 2:44:06 AM | 192
    Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA !
    First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this provocation ??
    b | Apr 16, 2017 10:11:11 AM | 194
    Had forgotten this when I wrote the post above:

    Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.

    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 10:26:08 AM | 195
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.

    Outraged | Apr 16, 2017 10:32:20 AM | 196
    @ JMiller

    Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 12:28:22 PM | 197
    Link to Desaix Anderson's Nautilus Institute address
    Crisis In North Korea.
    http://oldsite.nautilus.org/fora/security/0325A_Anderson.html
    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 2:39:37 PM | 198
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may. It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would do anything.

    Anon1 | Apr 16, 2017 3:08:42 PM | 199
    Jimiller

    Yeah how dare NK offer peaceful ways to solve problems in this world. Yeah no wonder US not accepted it, go figure.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political elite is generally an office plankton with law or political science (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill)

    Notable quotes:
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49

    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    [Apr 17, 2017] US Attack on Syria Cements Kremlins Embrace of Assad

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.

    The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.

    The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.

    The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air space.

    [Apr 17, 2017] The two party system is THE PROBLEM.

    Notable quotes:
    "... A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for him in spite of their dislike. ..."
    "... European neoliberalism in many ways created the conditions that the far right has recently exploited to convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants. Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as well)? ..."
    "... The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so dominant that in combination with how the election system is structured, they are basically the only two national parties. The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties that influence policy through coalition forming simply doesn't exist. ..."
    "... US presidential, senatorial, and congressional candidates basically run not with a platform, but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered - he couldn't run as a non-Democrat. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael, April 16, 2017 at 07:55 AM
    "Liberals now looking to commune with the Trump base should check out the conscientious effort to do exactly that by the Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild. As we learn in her election-year best seller, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, she poured her compassion, her anthropological sensibility, and five years of her life into "a journey to the heart of the American right." Determined to burst out of her own "political bubble," Hochschild uprooted herself to the red enclave of Lake Charles, Louisiana, where, as she reports, there are no color-coded recycling bins or gluten-free restaurant entrées. There she befriended and chronicled tea-party members who would all end up voting for Trump. Hochschild liked the people she met, who in turn reciprocated with a "teasing, good-hearted acceptance of a stranger from Berkeley." And lest liberal readers fear that she was making nice with bigots in the thrall of their notorious neighbor David Duke, she offers reassurances that her tea-partyers "were generally silent about blacks." (Around her, anyway.)

    Hochschild's mission was inspired by Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? She wanted "to scale the empathy wall" and "unlock the door to the Great Paradox" of why working-class voters cast ballots for politicians actively opposed to their interests. Louisiana is America's ground zero for industrial pollution and toxic waste; the stretch of oil and petrochemical plants along the Mississippi between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is not known as "cancer alley" for nothing. Nonetheless, the kindly natives befriended by Hochschild not only turned out for Trump but have consistently voted for local politicians like Steve Scalise (No. 3 in Paul Ryan's current House leadership), former senator David Vitter, and former governor Bobby Jindal, who rewarded poison-spewing corporations with tax breaks and deregulation even as Louisiana's starved public institutions struggled to elevate the health and education of a populace that ranks near the bottom in both among the 50 states. Hochschild's newfound friends, some of them in dire health, have no explanation for this paradox, only lame, don't–wanna–rock–Big Oil's–tanker excuses. Similarly unpersuasive is their rationale for hating the federal government, given that it foots the bill for 44 percent of their state's budget. Everyone who takes these handouts is a freeloader except them, it seems; the government should stop favoring those other moochers (none dare call them black) who, in their view, "cut the line." Never mind that these white voters who complain about "line cutters" are themselves guilty of cutting the most important line of all - the polling-place line - since they are not subjected to the voter-suppression efforts being inflicted on minorities by GOP state legislatures, the Roberts Supreme Court, and now the Jeff Sessions–led Department of Justice.

    In "What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class," a postelection postmortem published to much op-ed attention by the Harvard Business Review (and soon to be published in expanded form as what will undoubtedly be another best-selling book), the University of California law professor Joan C. Williams proposes that other liberals do in essence what Hochschild did. "The best advice I've seen so far for Democrats is the recommendation that hipsters move to Iowa," Williams writes - or to any other location in the American plains where "shockingly high numbers of working-class men are unemployed or on disability, fueling a wave of despair deaths in the form of the opioid epidemic." She further urges liberals to discard "the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite" (epitomized in her view by Hillary Clinton) that leads them to condescend to disaffected working-class whites and "write off blue-collar resentment as racism."

    Hochschild anticipated that Williams directive, too. She's never smug. But for all her fond acceptance of her new Louisiana pals, and for all her generosity in portraying them as virtually untainted by racism, it's not clear what such noble efforts yielded beyond a book, many happy memories of cultural tourism, and confirmation that nothing will change anytime soon. Her Louisianans will keep voting for candidates who will sabotage their health and their children's education; they will not be deterred by an empathic Berkeley visitor, let alone Democratic politicians."

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/frank-rich-no-sympathy-for-the-hillbilly.html

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , April 16, 2017 at 08:41 AM
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-fight-in-the-borderlands

    The Fight in the Borderlands by Josh Marshall

    "We hear people constantly saying 'Nothing will change his supporters' minds. They're with him no matter what.' First of all this is enervating defeatism which is demoralizing and loserish. But it also misses the point. It is factually wrong. For the supporters those people have in mind, they're right.

    They're true believers, authoritarians who are energized by Trump's destructive behavior. But there are not that many of those people. A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for him in spite of their dislike. Those people can be carved away. But Democrats will regain power by winning it in what amount to our 21st century internal American borderlands, not in the big cities or rural areas mainly but in between. So what's happening now to lay that groundwork for 2018?"

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , April 16, 2017 at 08:45 AM
    interview with Matthew Brueing

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/trump-health-obamacare-welfare-medicaid-racism-republicans-democrats/

    DD: European neoliberalism in many ways created the conditions that the far right has recently exploited to convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants. Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as well)?

    MB: The Finland situation is very promising from a leftist view. Finland's political system is mostly dominated by six parties: the Green Party, similar to the Greens here; a Social Democratic Party. which is like the Labor Party; the Left Alliance, which is the communists and socialists. This is the Left.

    On the other side, you have the Centre Party, which was like the Farmers' Party but doesn't really have an economic definition, so sometimes they join coalitions with left-wing or right-wing parties; you have the National Coalition Party, the right-wing business party; then, lately, you have the Finns Party - which used to be called the True Finns, which kind of gives you a hint of what they're about. They're like an ethno-nationalist party, though they will deny that.

    In 2015, the top three parties in Finland were conservative: in order was the Centre Party, the National Coalition Party, and then the Finns. They came together and formed the center-right Bourgeois Government (which is what they actually call their governments). Combined, the three parties have about 60 percent of the public behind them.

    The Finns join the center-right party that's mostly interested in austerity of various sorts - trimming down wages and benefits, increasing competitiveness of exports, which also means trimming down labor costs and making people work longer and cutting vacations.

    When the Finns join that government, their support just collapses. It goes from over 20 percent to less than 10 percent over a year or two. If you read the Finnish newspapers, the consensus is that they are basically supported by blue-collar people who are also racists. But ultimately, they don't want a party that comes in and cuts their wages and benefits even if the party is racist and satisfies their anti-immigrant tendencies.

    Their support base looks at the Finns Party and says, "You're a traitor to the working class - to hell with you." Only left parties picked up voters as the ethno-nationalist party declined.

    This shows that even people who are have very bad views on immigration and diversity - if they get screwed on just basic pocketbook issues, they jump ship and go back over to their old homes in the Left.

    That's a good sign for the American context, especially because Trump and the Republicans are not going to run a government that benefits working-class people. His base is going to get disillusioned and be open to supporting a Bernie-style candidate or someone like that who speaks to their issues and actually intends to follow through with them, instead of just using them rhetorically and then abandoning them once they get into office. So it's promising.

    cm -> Peter K.... , April 16, 2017 at 05:48 PM
    The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so dominant that in combination with how the election system is structured, they are basically the only two national parties. The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties that influence policy through coalition forming simply doesn't exist.

    US presidential, senatorial, and congressional candidates basically run not with a platform, but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered - he couldn't run as a non-Democrat.

    reason -> cm... , April 17, 2017 at 03:06 AM
    Yep.

    The two party system is THE PROBLEM.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Ron Paul Peace Is Popular... People Dont Start The Wars Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... You have/had no leaders, you have owners. ..."
    "... "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." ..."
    "... We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. ..."
    "... The problem is the US education/MSM/government indoctrination that you must pick a team and be loyal regardless of its acts. ..."
    "... Those teams are major league sports/local sports/Demo-Rep/identity politics/US military/captain America/right-left/ and so forth. ..."
    "... The MSM profits from those team events. War is an extension of my team "uber alles psychosis." War promises glory, victories and the impossibility of defeat or losses for the USA. Trained sheeple emote USA, USA, USA. Reality is they're no different than the deranged in a Depression era movie, wherein thousands bow down, worshiping, an evil leader. ..."
    "... God backs the USA? God gives glory and heaven to all who die for the USA? God rewards killing? When will they ever learn? ..."
    "... The most important insight in the article for me is the distinction between control freak, power-obsessed psychopaths like most in congress and those who just want to be left alone (e.g. most of the ZH readers). The desire to be left alone and not told by nannycrats how to live your life is at the heart of libertarian philosophy coupled with individual responsibility. That soda is too big for you, wear a seatbelt, sensible gun control, shared responsibility tax, wear a motorcycle helmet, reduce your carbon footprint etc. The whining nagging nannycrats don't understand: the universe is random, you can't control everything with laws and regulations. In short, their worldview is fundamentally flawed and this is why there can never be compromise in matters of liberty. Death to the MIC, the prison industrial complex fueled by the failed war on drug, the failed "war on poverty". And most important, death to the FED, whose debt money allows the financing of the warfare/welfare state which is the single greatest impediment to human progress. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the individual in the engine which drives the world and liberty its fuel. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    by Future Jim -> logicalman , Apr 16, 2017 11:51 AM

    They Live

    Learn how we know the cabal is real.

    WTFRLY -> Future Jim , Apr 16, 2017 11:53 AM

    It's not people, it's the creatures masquerading as people

    Yukon Cornholius -> WTFRLY , Apr 16, 2017 12:17 PM

    Ron Paul figures he needs about 29 million Americans to get on board with making radical change. Good luck with that.

    HopefulCynical -> Yukon Cornholius , Apr 16, 2017 12:27 PM

    All wars are banker wars.

    Giant Meteor -> HopefulCynical , Apr 16, 2017 1:59 PM

    Correct.

    Snorster, The Black Swan Is On The Wing

    Never get's old .. "The International Banker Is THe Scum of The Earth" ..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1HhQejLoSA

    daily westerner -> Giant Meteor , Apr 16, 2017 2:57 PM

    Ron Paul knows a thing or two.

    He could teach that orange goblin some tricks. Let's be honest, we could be better with an OLDER adviser, instead of Javanka.

    Trump Comes Across a Bit too "Clever" for His Own Good

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-04-16/trump-comes-across-a-bit-too-c...

    FreeShitter -> BaBaBouy , Apr 16, 2017 11:44 AM

    You have/had no leaders, you have owners.

    Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter , Apr 16, 2017 11:51 AM

    They OWN you ! Shoutout to Carlin ...

    Giant Meteor , Apr 16, 2017 11:49 AM

    Things have a tendency to spin out of control ..

    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

    The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail.

    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

    lie_to_me -> flaminratzazz , Apr 16, 2017 12:23 PM

    Psychopaths aren't human. The capacity for empathy makes us human.

    HopefulCynical -> lie_to_me , Apr 16, 2017 12:46 PM

    Exactly. Humans have a conscience. Those who don't - aren't.

    jamesmmu , Apr 16, 2017 12:00 PM

    Did President Trump's Dinner/Summit With President Of China At Mar-A-Lago Help With North Korea And Other Matters For Americans?

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/did-president-trumps-dinnersummit-with-pr...

    Reaper , Apr 16, 2017 12:00 PM

    The problem is the US education/MSM/government indoctrination that you must pick a team and be loyal regardless of its acts.

    Those teams are major league sports/local sports/Demo-Rep/identity politics/US military/captain America/right-left/ and so forth.

    The MSM profits from those team events. War is an extension of my team "uber alles psychosis." War promises glory, victories and the impossibility of defeat or losses for the USA. Trained sheeple emote USA, USA, USA. Reality is they're no different than the deranged in a Depression era movie, wherein thousands bow down, worshiping, an evil leader.

    God backs the USA? God gives glory and heaven to all who die for the USA? God rewards killing? When will they ever learn?

    BenBache , Apr 16, 2017 12:05 PM

    I totally disagree. The voting class has given us all the wars. Read the comments at Breitbart or the Washington Times. They love bombs and killing. Same with the left when they have their murderers in charge. The entire left supported Obama's claim that the president has the right to execute Americans on a whim, including children. No one objected when Obama launched fake missiles into fake wedding parties. Since FDR Americans have seen war as their Christian National Duty.

    SteveK9 , Apr 16, 2017 1:14 PM

    Why do we have wars? Hermann Goering summed it up superbly:

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    seataka , Apr 16, 2017 1:24 PM

    I thought this link important enough to risk being accused of spam:

    In a world reduced to thought stopping sound-bytes, perspective is everything:

    http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    " The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely will). "

    rockstone , Apr 16, 2017 1:39 PM

    "If we learn how to build so many wonderful things and the standard of living goes up for so many people and we have all of these luxuries, why is it that we haven't figured out how to stay out of killing each other?"

    I don't know Paul. Maybe because there are people who don't care to "learn to build so many wonderful things" and will slit your throat in a heartbeat to take it.

    I notice you're down there in beautiful lilly white Lake Jackson surrounded by Bubba nice and safe.

    Next time, head about 90 minutes north and discuss "non aggression" in the Ward. Otherwise STFU.

    Son of Captain Nemo , Apr 16, 2017 1:56 PM

    Ron. As always we appreciate your dissertation on the voracious American appetite for indifference when it pledges to make every other energy rich sovereign Nation a "nail" for it's "hammer" before "looting"...

    But I digress....

    This is where you should have come in after Paul Wellstone was murdered in his investigation of the U.S. government's hand in the event(s) of 9/11 and it's "cover up"!

    You voted for Afghanistan and hung a "yellow bumper sticker" on your car when you knew out of the starting gate what it was for and more importantly how it would end up being used to prop up a failing American British Central Banking system that was on it's last legs after it took place?..

    No more pity parties after you were approached by the likes of "AE911Truth" twice after 2009!

    Step aside and let the Russian Bear commence it's "bitch slapping" in Raqqa and the Donbass!!

    Only way the American people will wise up is when Congress brings home oodles of American "char broiled" in body bags from Syria needing "NGDR" which will require a Draft this time given we're sort of light in the wallet as well as the "loafers" post-2008ish!!!

    Internet-is-Beast , Apr 16, 2017 2:01 PM

    Trump is being blindsided by his narcisism and materialism. He is like a character in a Greek play. He will drag us all down with him. Those Greeks were really on to something. That's why it's so important to have a classical education.

    GRDguy , Apr 16, 2017 2:25 PM

    As an old man, and a very long time student of history, it never ceases to amaze me how the sociopathic 1% of the population can lie-to, steal-from, and murder in the name of the 99% who are NOT sociopathic. That's why I vote against every incumbent, every primary and every election. Simple odds are that we'll get a non-sociopathic majority in government each time.

    Zoomorph -> GRDguy , Apr 16, 2017 4:14 PM

    It's not surprising since "sociopath" has been defined practically to mean someone powerful (although the definition is ambiguous, and also commonly includes another sort of person) - so there's no surprise that those in positions of power are "sociopaths". Anyways, if you don't yet understand that that's how life works and has to work then you ought to go read more history and reflect further on the subject.

    Does it also amaze you that the 0.001% human beings continue to trample over, eat, or viciously murder the 99.999% insects and plants?

    besnook -> PitBullsRule , Apr 16, 2017 2:34 PM

    before the west discovered asia and the pacific there was relative peace for hundreds of years. constant war is a western thing. you have never given up your roman, visigoth, barbarian, uncivilized essence.

    Able Ape , Apr 16, 2017 3:23 PM

    You own a munitions plant, you send checks to CONgress, in the mean time people eat up Patriotism like it was candy from the time they are 5 years old, politicians who get checks from the munitions plants tell their constituents that we need to go to war and its the patriotic thing to do and it will take the peoples' minds off the messes CONgress had made .... in this trail of tears, where's the resistance? Hardly any is there? It's like a greased path right to war.... Yet, how many people want to live in neighborhoods where there is constant shooting, bombing, killing - where you don't know if you will see the next sunrise...People like to live in nice, quiet, peaceful neighborhoods, SO.....?

    John_Coltrane , Apr 16, 2017 3:30 PM

    First, let me congratulate ZH for publishing this great article with the thoughts of one of the most intelligent, insightful, honest and humane individuals who has ever served this country. Ron reminds us of why we should sometimes be proud of being American when we have so much to make us ashamed.

    The most important insight in the article for me is the distinction between control freak, power-obsessed psychopaths like most in congress and those who just want to be left alone (e.g. most of the ZH readers). The desire to be left alone and not told by nannycrats how to live your life is at the heart of libertarian philosophy coupled with individual responsibility. That soda is too big for you, wear a seatbelt, sensible gun control, shared responsibility tax, wear a motorcycle helmet, reduce your carbon footprint etc. The whining nagging nannycrats don't understand: the universe is random, you can't control everything with laws and regulations. In short, their worldview is fundamentally flawed and this is why there can never be compromise in matters of liberty. Death to the MIC, the prison industrial complex fueled by the failed war on drug, the failed "war on poverty". And most important, death to the FED, whose debt money allows the financing of the warfare/welfare state which is the single greatest impediment to human progress. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the individual in the engine which drives the world and liberty its fuel.

    Live long and prosper Doctor Paul.

    Sid Davis , Apr 16, 2017 5:03 PM

    Peace might be popular with ordinary people, but government being the institutionalization of force, doesn't do what ordinary people do. The people who gravitate to government offices are the extreme narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths of the world, and they like to use force (the power of government). Since war is the ultimate expression of force, it actually is something these people in government like to do.

    When the inmates run the asylum, the results are bad for the rest of us.

    The only legitimate use of force is in self defence, which is why normal people sometimes choose to fight rebellions against the crazies in government.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Man made political and economic institutions underlie economic success or lack of it

    Notable quotes:
    "... The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture? ..."
    "... "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It." ..."
    "... Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this. ..."
    "... With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. ..."
    "... Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly. ..."
    "... Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus. ..."
    "... It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties. ..."
    "... Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime ..."
    "... In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate. ..."
    "... "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined" ..."
    "... My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market. ..."
    "... That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    From a ProMarket interview with Anat Admati:
    ... Q: The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture?

    Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack of it)." Technological developments have highlighted the immense power associated with controlling information. The business of investigative reporting is in a crisis. Corporations often play off governments, shopping jurisdictions and making bargains. For capitalism to work, the relevant institutions must work effectively and avoid excessive rent extraction. The governance challenge of the global economy is daunting.

    RGC said...

    "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It."

    [Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this.]

    libezkova , April 15, 2017 at 01:53 PM

    "Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack of it)."

    Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals (although there was no any single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état. From above. Much like Bolshevism.

    Looks like it is more resilient then Marxism based economic systems and it demonstrated staying power even after 2008 -- when the ideology itself was completely discredited and became a joke.

    Neoliberalism survived the demise of neoliberal ideology and entered zombie stage. Much like many sects with discredited predictions like the Second Coming.

    Neoliberalism borrowed quite a lot from Marxism. Actually analogies with Marxism are too numerous to list. But one is very important: neoliberalism replaced "Dictatorship of proletariat" with the dictatorship of "free markets" and proletariat itself with so called "creative class".

    With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.

    They also demonstrated the same ruthlessness in the best style of "end justifies means". Killed are mainly "brown people" (is we do not count ten thousand Ukrainians)

    In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." Gore Vidal once famously said that the neoliberal economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." As unforgettable Bush II said "I'm a free market guy. But I'm not gonna let this economy crater in order to preserve the free market system" – George W. Bush, December 17, 2008, William Simon, President Nixon's Treasury Secretary, once famously observed of those who preach free markets typically are simultaneously rushing to the public treasury: "I watched with incredulity as businessmen ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition that has made this system so productive always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state. Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their immense concern for the public interest."

    And neoliberalism uses the same repressive tactics including dominance in MSM and the control of the university education to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites.

    Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly.

    That fact the deification of markets is a "fools gold" was know from the Great Recession (and Karl Polanyi famous book), but when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level of solidarity with workers against capital owners). The new generation switched camps and allied with capital owners against the working class.

    When the old generation was replaced with HBS and WBS graduates -- ready made neoliberals -- quite coup (in Simon Johnson terms) naturally followed ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ ) and we have hat we have.

    In this sense the ascendance of neoliberalism and Managerialism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism ) are closely related.

    Both treat the country the same way as bacteria treat a squirrel carcass.

    Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time, genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon-correctly, in most cases-that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

    As Paine noted neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful.

    Among them are two key LA countries -- Brazil and Argentina. That happened despite that this phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same.

    Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by slower rate of improvement of key social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income population of LA countries [compared with the prior two decades ]

    In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended, responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.

    As for the question "Why?" there might be several reasons.

    1. Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus.
    2. This is LA specific part. It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties.
    3. Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime.

    My impression is that before the next oil crisis (defined as oil price crossing $150 mark or so) attempts to displace financial oligarchy are bound to fail.

    So, in some "mutated" form, like Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" ( aka neoliberalism without globalization, limited to a single country) it will stay put.

    In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate.

    paine -> libezkova... April 15, 2017 at 06:17 PM

    Class dictatorship

    Raw or refined .

    libezkova -> paine... April 16, 2017 at 06:08 PM

    "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined"

    That's David Harvey's view:

    http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Their-crisis-our-challenge

    "Does this crisis signal the end of neoliberalism? My answer is that it depends what you mean by neoliberalism. My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market.

    That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful."

    [Apr 15, 2017] Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria

    A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding" back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.

    One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.

    The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.

    Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.

    Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.

    So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.

    What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

    I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?

    This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.

    Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

    --> Sharon5101 Rockaway Beach Ny April 12, 2017

    How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?

    Cathy Hopewell Junction April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.

    Trump is a checkers player. King Me!

    He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.

    Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.

    Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.

    Patrick Stevens Mn April 12, 2017

    Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama? Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
    Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
    That is the answer to your question.

    Jack Hartman Douglas, Michigan April 12, 2017

    The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and political assets.

    In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.

    Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.

    That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.

    Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO April 12, 2017

    This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy. There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls from it.

    Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?

    M.I. Estner Wayland MA April 12, 2017

    Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical things are just being illogical.

    In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.

    But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.

    Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.

    One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.

    Lawrence Kucher Morritown NJ April 12, 2017

    Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
    to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
    in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
    "secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
    This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
    Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
    golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
    Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
    Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
    (I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)

    Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City April 12, 2017

    Commenting on Trump is degrading
    All logic and sense he's evading,
    Bankruptcy's his gambit
    Illogic his ambit
    His ego growth isn't abating.

    A TV reality show
    Is about the one thing he does know
    A statesman he's not
    The POTUS we've got
    As a learner? Egregiously slow.

    Dan Welch East Lyme, CT April 12, 2017

    Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference. So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.

    Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    "I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free?"

    Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?

    As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.

    The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.

    Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.

    soxared, 04-07-23 Crete, Illinois April 12, 2017

    "Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah."

    Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.

    Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."

    It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.

    I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.

    He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich April 12, 2017

    "The Trump foreign policy team"

    Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."

    There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.

    So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.

    My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."

    Hal Donahue Scranton April 12, 2017

    Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back. The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
    Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?

    Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.

    Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.

    Hugh CC Budapest April 12, 2017

    I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But Mr. Friedman, there isn't.

    Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.

    Michael California April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to fall short:

    "And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"

    Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.

    IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.

    John LeBaron MA April 12, 2017

    The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.

    Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.

    These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.

    john.jamotta Hurst, Texas April 12, 2017

    Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.

    To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.

    Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.

    Joseph Huben Upstate NY April 12, 2017

    Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
    The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.

    Bos is a trusted commenter Boston April 12, 2017

    ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?

    Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade

    While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future

    Joseph Thomas Reston, VA April 12, 2017

    The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to our country and the world.

    He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.

    Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.

    Nice idea, though.

    roarofsilence North Carolina April 12, 2017

    There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.

    DanC Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan. He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.

    Aubrey Alabama April 12, 2017

    Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.

    Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.

    silver bullet Warrenton VA April 12, 2017

    In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS. He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.

    The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".

    Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.

    James Landi Salisbury, Maryland April 12, 2017

    "Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy... never happen.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Leaks NSA Penetrated Mideast Banking Networks -- News from Antiwar.com

    Apr 15, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    New leaked documents released by the Shadow Brokers includes information showing that the NSA penetrated Middle Eastern financial networks , initially with an eye toward being able to track all financial transactions in the region as an "anti-money laundering" effort.

    This involved hacking into the region's SWIFT banking system, and unsurprisingly,, given the NSA's penchant for mission creep fairly quickly grew this into an effort not only to have access to the information on financial transactions, but to try to gain access to a long list of banks "of interest."

    The leaks provided information showing that SWIFT bureau in the Middle East, EastNet, made some very poor security choices, which would've allowed the NSA to easily attack essentially all of the banks on the network, as soon as they had compromised the first one.

    Documents showed at least five of the banks "of interest" had been compromised. It is unclear from the documents whether the NSA continues to have these banks' systems compromised and is continued to collect data from them, though at the very least they now have a heads up that it's going on.

    [Apr 14, 2017] Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
    "... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
    "... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
    "... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
    "... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
    "... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
    "... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
    "... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
    "... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
    "... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.

    The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.

    White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.

    This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.

    What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties.

    Feminists misunderstood the presidential election from day one Liza Featherstone By banking on the idea that women would support Hillary Clinton just because she was a female candidate, the movement made a terrible mistake Read more

    The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

    Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering – be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.

    In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome!

    Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election Hannah Jane Parkinson The 'alt-right' (aka the far right) ensnared the electorate using false stories on social media. But tech companies seem unwilling to admit there's a problem

    In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.

    We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence.

    As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.

    For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.

    theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40

    To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.

    farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35

    The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.

    Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.

    That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.

    if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!

    Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33

    Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!

    ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24

    Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short game has every chance of doing what he said it would.

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36

    The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

    Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.

    He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did.

    But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies, to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried.

    ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37

    I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist' at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.

    LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05

    True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.

    Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.

    I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.

    l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
    Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated and cheated, why would he want to change it.
    garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
    West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is a planned economy.

    Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40

    This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper historical context.

    However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.

    Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations who fund their campaigns.

    Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the big Wall Street investment banks.

    Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear that they will once again be marginalized.

    Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very difficult.


    VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42

    Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.

    macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46

    It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound byte does little to illuminate anything.

    Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties, with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists, systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late) to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark with the dark face of the devil behind it.

    We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties, but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've been badly let down by it.

    It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution. Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.

    VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00

    I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.

    Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.

    I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem. If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.

    [Apr 14, 2017] The west used colonies as laboratories for weapons. Its not different today

    Apr 14, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The United States has dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat against Isis targets in Afghanistan. But why drop such a gargantuan bomb in the first place? No one can have any sympathy for Isis and its murderous offshoots, but you don't need to be a military expert to suspect something strange might be going on here.

    Since the US's stated objective was to destroy underground tunnels, wouldn't so-called bunker buster bombs, which can also be huge and dig deep into the earth, serve the aims of this mission just as well, if not better?

    Look to the history of colonial warfare for the answer. The lands of the colonized have always served as the western world's laboratory for the newest and worst weapons of war.

    Bombs may have been with us since the invention of gunpowder, but the phenomenon of aerial warfare is only as old as 1 November 1911, when Libya became the first country to suffer a bombardment from the sky.

    Late to the colonial scramble for Africa, Italy coveted Libya, then a province of the failing Ottoman empire. In 1911, the Italians invaded the north African territory and that November, Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti flew over Ain Zara, just east of Tripoli. Unbeknownst to his superiors, Gavotti tossed four 1.5kg grenades out of his window, pulling the pins with his teeth, and watching them explode on the oasis town below. He later wrote that he was "really pleased with the result".

    Just like today, the press went crazy with the news. The innovation of aerial warfare was mind blowing. Gavotti was lauded as a true Italian hero, although Europe's professional warriors initially thought otherwise. They considered the act beneath the rules of civilized combat. Their contempt didn't last long, and a new era of aerial warfare, especially against "uncivilized" peoples, began.

    In 1920, Britain took charge of Iraq, and a popular revolt quickly erupted. The Royal Air Force responded with a new strategy they called "control without occupation". The thinking was that there would be no need for large and costly contingents of soldiers on the ground if one could simply bomb the local population into submission from the sky. And bomb they did. For days, weeks, and months on end.

    Churchill , who in 1919 had penned a memo stating that he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes", even pushed Air Marshal Trenchard in 1920 to "proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them". Historians now believe there wasn't enough mustard gas to go around, so large-scale conventional bombing was left to achieve Britain's desired result in Iraq.

    The United States is not immune to such military opportunism either. The US fired its first depleted uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf war. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kgs) landed in Iraq in that war, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, as old as our solar system now is. The results have been spectacularly terrible throughout Iraq, with birth defects and cancer rates disturbingly elevated throughout the country.

    The Russian military has exploited its campaign assisting the Assad regime in Syria to test out 162 new weapons systems, including new cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It would seem the Russians are very proud of their new weapons. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu used the occasion of Vladimir Putin's 63 rd birthday to announce that Russia had fired cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea, some 900 miles away.

    Look at the countries mentioned thus far – Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan . Southeast Asia of course also suffered terribly when it was the west's main laboratory of death and destruction, but this list of countries should give us a sense of history regarding our current conflicts along with some much-needed humility about the success of bombing people into submission.

    This brings us to the GBU-43/B, a 22,600-pound bomb that is known as a Moab, officially a Massive Ordinance Air Blast and unofficially a Mother of All Bombs. Developed for the 2003 Iraq war, each GBU-43/B reportedly costs $16m. The bomb, which explodes before impact and with a reported blast radius as large as a mile in diameter, is the second largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. It has never been used before. Until now.

    Once again, the territory inhabited by the "uncivilized" has been shelled so the west can try out its new lethal toys. Forgotten in all of this is that bombs, especially ones this size, don't affect only people. Munitions may be aimed at enemies, but an enormous bomb such as this kills plant life massively as well. When such a bomb detonates, a percussive blast destroys everything in it fatal path, shattering the insides of humans and animals alike.

    The air is literally sucked out of the atmosphere to feed the jealous fire created by its explosion. The aim of such a bomb is to kill enemies but at what consequence to our earth? There is something narcissistic to think that bombs of this enormity are an attack on humanity. In fact, they are an assault on all forms of life.

    --> Devondaddy , 13m ago The MOAB used in Afghanistan was almost exactly the same size as Barns Wallace's Grandslam' bomb deployed by the RAF against the Nazis in 1945.
    Sorry if that doesn't fit with the narrative, but in conflict the most appropriate weapons are deployed irrespective of who the enemy are.
    Try reading a little military history if you are going to write about it.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb )

    --> , MartinSilenus , 14 Apr 2017 18:01

    Oh, Poison Gas was first used, on Europeans, by Europeans.
    Nuclear weapons only use was not on `uncivilised tribes`, but an Industrial Nation, Imperial Japan.
    Mostly, we used the most sdvanced weapons, to kill other western forces: only then, were they used in Colonial wars. Custers men at the Little Big Horn, used single shot rifles, the only repeating rifles were used by some of the Native Americans. He could have taken `Gatling Guns`he refused!
    "The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating rifles"
    https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0625 /
    http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
    http://custerlives.com/7thcav11.htm
    , Briar , 14 Apr 2017 17:57
    Of course The West doesn't do things like this - as far as its own self portrait is concerned. You won't find any shade of the opinion of this commentator in the items singing the praises of America's massive WMDs in the media today. They are so excited about the size of the bomb! About the message it sends about the West's Greatness. I daresay most men of god will similarly support it this Sunday by not mentioning the obscenity of calling the bomb a "mother" or deploying it at Easter. It's just so Christian - killing people of lesser gods en masse at what the West regards as the holiest time of the year.
    , Black_Sparrow , 14 Apr 2017 17:56
    Failing banana republics like the US need to distract as much as possible from the domestic problems. Dropping big bombs in Afghanistan makes Americans think they are still powerful, while the country is collapsing like a cheap tent.
    , MartinSilenus , 14 Apr 2017 17:49
    Note, in the below - famous - Churchill memo on the use of `poison gas` he states quite clearly the type he envisages using: "making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas".

    Lachrymatory means tears/crying, in other words tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory agent. He had been in the Trenches, the effects of Mustard gas on the Eyes, Skin & Lungs would have been familiar to him, read the memo yourself, does it sound like WWI poison gasses: Chlorine, Phosgene or Mustard gas, was being proposed? Note: the blinded of Mustard Gas, could have lived until the late 20th Century, why no accounts of them blinded as children, great anti British propoganda, so why has no such tales of gas blindings from the 1920`s ever been reported from Iraq?

    " as shown in a War Office minute of 12 May 1919 in which Winston Churchill argued :

    "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

    , PierreCorneille , 14 Apr 2017 17:48
    It amazes me, well, not anymore, how ignorant Americans are. This "Mother" bomb is not the biggest ever used. One of them yes, but the RAF used a 22,000 pound bomb called the Grand Slam. Carried by the Avro Lancaster, it was used for highly reinforced positions like U boat pens. Reply Share
    , CforCynic PierreCorneille , 14 Apr 2017 17:53
    Biggest in terms of the amount of explosives inside it. Grand Slam had just less than half the amount of explosives inside it that the MOAB does. We used to have a few empty Grand Slam casings laying around on one of the MoD sites I worked at. Extremely thick steel, to say the least. Reply Share
    , Pfalze CforCynic , 14 Apr 2017 18:06
    Grand Slams were designed to go deep into the ground and explode creating an underground chamber.They were also known as earthquake bombs.The largest high explosive bomb was the Blockbuster. A 12000lb bomb 3/4 of the weight of the bomb was the contents.It was designed as a blast bomb. Reply Share
    , CforCynic Pfalze , 14 Apr 2017 18:17
    I spent a bit of my MoD career working with what was euphemistically referred to as "energetic materials". We had quite a few WW2 relics at one of the sites. From bits of Tallboy and Grand Slam casings, to all different types of MC and HC bombs. Last I heard the scrappy got his hands on them, so they're probably baked-bean cans by now.
    , Pier16 , 14 Apr 2017 17:40
    I have figured out 90% of the US government activity is selling BS to the American people so that they can continue doing what they're doing without being questioned.

    In the big scheme of things this is a big bomb to take out supposedly a large depot of arms belonging to the ISIS terrorists who were about to commence their spring offensive in that area.

    Americans have done bombings like this before (not with MOAB ~~ but hundreds of smaller bombs). But, the "public relations" aspect of this bombing was just out of this world. For example retired general McCaffrey on MSNBC said this is a weapon of terror (he meant it in a good way). It terrorizes ISIS and anyone who cooperates with them. I guess he meant in a "shock and awe" way. The American media is cheering this, as if no one in the world knows US has nukes and can blow everyone off the face of the earth several times, until they deployed this weapon. You hear from the talking heads and their echo chambers, this is going to give a message to the North Koreans and this or that group. The message North Koreans, and this or that group is getting is US has a huge amount of weapons, a big military, but after fighting for 16 years in an impoverished country, with a GDP of $3 billion, US has resorted to biggest nonnuclear weapon in its arsenal to show how tough they are. The message this sends to the rest of the world is US military is impotent and incompetent, so is the US government.

    , CriticAtLarge Pier16 , 14 Apr 2017 17:49
    The Taliban control more of Afghanistan than at any point since 2001. Yeah, I am sure a massive bomb will turn the tide. Reply Share
    , moria50 CriticAtLarge , 14 Apr 2017 18:06
    The Taliban have head office in Turkey, UAE and Qatar....and business meetings in the Maldives.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22957827

    [Apr 14, 2017] 'Brought to you by agency which produced Al-Qaeda ISIS' – Assange trolls CIA chief

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet." ..."
    "... "non-state hostile intelligence service," ..."
    "... "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators." ..."
    "... "firm and continuing policy " ..."
    "... "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," ..."
    Apr 14, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Julian Assange has responded to CIA Director Mike Pompeo's accusation that WikiLeaks is a "non-state intelligence agency" by trolling the CIA over its own roles in producing "Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran and Pinochet."

    Called a "non-state intelligence service" today by the "state non-intelligence agency" which produced al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) April 14, 2017

    Assange tweeted, "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet."

    Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of siding with dictators and being a "non-state hostile intelligence service," at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Thursday. He called Assange and his associates "demons" and said "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators."

    BREAKING: #WikiLeaks is 'hostile intel' and #Assange & his followers are 'demons' - CIA chief Mike #Pompeo https://t.co/DA5MmJIYWF pic.twitter.com/MjQ87lKJgR

    - RT America (@RT_America) April 13, 2017

    Assange in turn accused the CIA of producing terrorist groups and dictators. He said the CIA produced Al-Qaeda, referring to the agency's role in arming and training mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets during the 1970s, some of whom – including Osama Bin Laden – later evolved into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

    Assange has previously stated that the CIA's role in arming the mujahideen led to Al-Qaeda, which led to 9/11, the Iraq invasion and, later, the formation of ISIS.

    The CIA admitted it was behind the 1953 coup in Iran which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and reinstalled the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose 26 year rule led to the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    #WikiLeaks releases more than 500k US diplomatic cables from 1979 https://t.co/9Ophyvp2zD

    - RT America (@RT_America) November 28, 2016

    Assange's Pinochet reference alludes to the CIA's "firm and continuing policy " to assist in the overthrowing of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973, and its support for dictator Augusto Pinochet.

    Pompeo's attack on WikiLeaks appears to be in response to an op-ed Assange wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday which referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech, in which he warned of the dangers of the influence of the military industrial complex. Assange said the speech is similar to WikiLeaks' own mission statement.

    READ MORE: 40 targets in 16 countries: Scale of CIA-linked #Vault7 hacking tools revealed by Symantec

    "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," he said, going on to say that WikiLeaks' motives are the same as those of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

    Pompeo himself has previously appeared to support WikiLeaks' revelations, while President Donald Trump praised the whistleblowing site on more than one occasion during the presidential election, even professing his love for WikiLeaks in October.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Neocons Have Trump on His Knees

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan adminis