strategic-culture |Neoconservatism
started in 1953 with Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic Party US
Senator from the state of Washington (1953-1983), who became known as a
‘defense’ hawk, and as “the Senator from Boeing,” because Boeing practically owned him. The UK’s Henry Jackson Society was
founded in 2005 in order to carry forward Senator Jackson’s unwavering
and passionate endorsement of growing the American empire so that the US-UK alliance will control the entire world (and US weapons-makers will dominate in every market).
Later,
during the 1990s, neoconservatism became taken over by the Mossad and
the lobbyists for Israel and came to be publicly identified as a
‘Jewish’ ideology, despite its having — and having long had — many
champions who were ‘anti-communist’ or ‘pro-democracy’ or simply even
anti-Russian, but who were neither Jewish nor even focused at all on the
Middle East. Republicans Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain;
and the Democrat, CIA Director James Woolsey — the latter of whom was one of the patrons of Britain’s Henry Jackson Society —
were especially prominent neoconservatives, who came to prominence even
before neocons became called “neoconservatives.” What all neocons have
always shared in common has been a visceral hatred of Russians. That
comes above anything else — and even above NATO (the main neocon
organization).
During
recent decades, neocons have been hating Iranians and more generally
Shiites — such as in Syria and in Lebanon, and now also in Yemen — and
not only hating Russians.
When
the Israel lobby during the 1990s and after, pumped massive resources
into getting the US Government to invade first Iraq and then Iran,
neoconservatism got its name, but the ideology itself did not change.
However, there are a few neoconservatives today who are too ignorant to
know, in any coherent way, what their own underlying beliefs are, or
why, and so who are anti-Russians (that’s basic for any neocon) who
either don’t know or else don’t particularly care that Iran and Shia
Muslims generally, are allied with Russia. Neoconservatives such as
this, are simply confused neocons, people whose underlying ideology is
self-contradictory, because they’ve not carefully thought things
through.
theamericanconservative | 1) It’s clear now that Europeans will increase their
contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar
gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the
first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we
really think the former Soviet Empire will invade Poland or the Baltic
nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene in the
Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media,
for all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is
no debate about the reasons why. Meanwhile Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our
military-industrial-congressional complex that spending money is a major
intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe
from an Iranian attack? Of course, it was really directed against
Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the money that it didn’t even
ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million
on the site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay
billions to the Raytheon Corporation for the shield to comply with
their commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross
national product.
2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of
nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at
the joint press conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties
(the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was ejected
beforehand). Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC.
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes
which allow for a surprise attack on Russia with only a few minutes of
warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour or more.
This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern
Europe, because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were
fired from the new bases. Americans may think that we don’t start wars,
but the Russians don’t. The old shill argument that democracies don’t
start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and
Yemen.
3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump
for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His
administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic
attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his
meeting) $200 million of new aid to Ukraine’s military
and threatening Europeans with sanctions if they go ahead with a new
Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that Putin has given up on wanting better relations
with the U.S. and instead is just trying to weaken and discredit
America’s overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul
writes how we never think about other nations’ interests.
4) The release of intelligence agency findings about
Russians’ intervention in the last election just a day before the
conference precisely shows the strength of the “Deep State” in
dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should “Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia,” showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it’s good for business.
theduran | The result was an agreement between Putin and Trump to reopen
channels of communication between their governments and to meet
regularly with each other as they feel their way towards a
rapprochement.
To be clear, that rapprochement will not mean and is not intended to
mean that the US and Russia will cease to be adversaries and will become
friends.
Instead what is being discussed are steps to bring to a stop the
downward spiral in their relations, with each side obtaining a better
understanding of the other side’s moves and red lines, so that hopefully
geopolitical disasters like the 2014 Maidan coup can be avoided in
future.
That would be a major advance over what has existed previously given
that since the USSR collapsed in 1991 the US has refused to acknowledge
that Russia has any right to any opinions at all, let alone to act
independently or set out red lines.
Needless to say the more often Putin and Trump meet the more
‘normalised’ relations between the US and Russia become, with each
meeting provoking less controversy than the previous one, with the whole
process beyond a certain point becoming routine so that it attracts
ever less attention and (hopefully) eventually becomes uncontroversial.
It is because the powerful forces in the US who scorn the idea of a
‘geopolitical ceasefire’ and want ever greater confrontation between the
US and Russia do not want to see relations ‘normalised’ in this way
that their reaction to the summit has been so hysterical.
As of the time of writing it is these people who in the media and on
twitter are making the running. However it may be a mistake to see in
the volume of the noise they are making a true reflection of their
influence.
Last February’s Nuclear Posture Review
suggests that there is a very powerful constituency within the US and
specifically within the Pentagon which might potentially support the
sort of ‘geopolitical ceasefire’ with Russia that Donald Trump appears
to be gradually working towards.
The Nuclear Posture Review shows that some sections of the US
military understand how dangerously overstretched the US has become as
it responds simultaneously to challenges from Russia in Europe and from
China in the Pacific. Both Putin and Trump mentioned during their news
conference the extent to which their respective militaries are already
in contact with each other and are working well together
Donald Trump: Well, our militaries do get along.
In fact, our militaries actually have gotten along probably better than
our political leaders for years, but our militaries do get along very
well and they do coordinate in Syria and other places. Ok? Thank you. Vladimir Putin:……..On the whole, I really agree with
the President. Our military cooperation is going quite well. I hope
that they will continue to be able to come to agreements just as they
have been…..
That may be a sign that there is more understanding of what Donald
Trump is trying to do – at least within the US defence establishment –
than the hysteria the Helsinki summit has provoked might suggest.
Overall, provided it is clearly understood that what Putin and Trump
are working towards is a detente style ‘geopolitical ceasefire’ and not
‘friendship’ – and certainly not an alliance – it can be said that
their summit in Helsinki was a good start and a success.
What happens next depends on whether the forces of realism and sanity
in the US can prevail over those of megalomania and hysteria. Given
how entrenched the latter have become unfortunately no one can count on
this.
However some sort of process which may in time lead to detente and an
easing of tensions between the nuclear superpowers has begun. Given
the circumstances in which it has been launched that is more than might
have been expected even a short time ago, and for that one should be
grateful.
atimes | It’s crystal clear that President Trump is applying Kissingerian
divide-and-rule tactics, trying to reduce Russian political/economic
connectivity with the two other Eurasian integration poles, China and
Iran.
Still, the swamp cannot possibly contemplate The Big Picture – as this must-watch conversation
between two of the very few Americans who actually know Russia in-depth
attests. Professor Stephen Cohen and Professor John Mearsheimer go to
the jugular: Nothing can be done when Russophobia is the law of the
land.
Over and over again, we must go back to Putin’s March 1 speech, which
presented the US with what can only be described, writes Martyanov, as
“a military-technological Pearl Harbor-meets-Stalingrad.”
Martyanov goes all the way to explain how the latest Russian weapons systems
present immense strategic – and historical – ramifications. The missile
gap between the US and Russia is now “a technological abyss,” with
ballistic missiles “capable of trajectories which render any kind of
anti-ballistic defense useless.” Star Wars and its derivatives are now – to use a Trumpism – “obsolete.”
The Kinzhal, as described by Martyanov, is “a complete game-changer
geopolitically, strategically, operationally, tactically and
psychologically.” In a nutshell, “no modern or prospective air-defense
system deployed today by NATO can intercept even a single missile with
such characteristics.”
This means, among other things – and stressing it is never enough –
that the whole Eastern Mediterranean can be closed off, not to mention
the whole Persian Gulf. And all this goes way beyond asymmetry; it’s
about “the final arrival of a completely new paradigm” in warfare and
military technology.
Martyanov’s must-read book is the ultimate Weapon of Myth Destruction
(WMD). And unlike the Saddam Hussein version, this one actually exists.
As Putin warned (at 7:10 in the video), “They did not listen to us then.” Are they listening now?
WaPo | President Trump’s news conference Monday in Helsinki was the most embarrassing performance by an American president I can think of. And his preposterous efforts to talk his way out of
his troubles made him seem even more absurd. But what has been obscured
by this disastrous and humiliating display is the other strain in
Trump’s Russia narrative. As he recently tweeted,
“Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years
of U.S. foolishness and stupidity.” This notion is now firmly lodged in
Trump’s mind and informs his view of Russia and Putin. And it is an
issue worth taking seriously.
The idea that
Washington “lost” Russia has been around since the mid-1990s. I know
because I was one of the people who made that case. In a New York Times Magazine
article in 1998, I argued that “central to any transformation of the
post-Cold-War world was the transformation of Russia. As with Germany
and Japan in 1945, an enduring peace required that Moscow be integrated
into the Western world. Otherwise a politically and economically
troubled great power . . . would remain bitter and resentful about the
post-Cold-War order.”
This never happened, I
argued, because Washington was not ambitious enough in the aid it
offered. Nor was it understanding enough of Russia’s security concerns —
in the Balkans, for example, where the United States launched military
interventions that ran roughshod over Russian sensibilities.
Perhaps most crucially, by the mid-2000s, steadily rising oil prices had resulted in a doubling of
Russia’s per capita gross domestic product, and cash was flowing into
the Kremlin’s coffers. A newly enriched Russia looked at its region with
a much more assertive and ambitious gaze. And Putin, sitting atop the
“vertical of power” he had created, began a serious effort to restore
Russian influence and undermine the West and its democratic values. What
has followed — the interventions in Georgia and Ukraine, the alliance
with President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the cyberattacks against
Western countries — has all been in service of that strategy.
So
yes, the West might have missed an opportunity to transform Russia in
the early ’90s. We will never know whether it would have been
successful. But what we do know is that there were darker forces growing
in Russia from the beginning, that those forces took over the country
almost two decades ago and that Russia has chosen to become the
principal foe of America and the American-created world order.
wikipedia |President Kennedy had read Seven Days in May shortly after its publication and believed the scenario as described could actually occur in the United States. According to Frankenheimer in his director's commentary, production of the film received encouragement and assistance from Kennedy through White House Press SecretaryPierre Salinger, who conveyed to Frankenheimer Kennedy's wish that the film be produced and that, although the Pentagon did not want the film made, the President would arrange to be visiting Hyannis Port for a weekend when the film needed to shoot outside the White House.[7]
The story is set in the early 1970s, ten years in the future at the time of the film's 1964 release, and the Cold War is still a problem (in the 1962 book, the setting was May 1974 after a stalemated war in Iran). U.S. President Jordan Lyman has recently signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union, and the subsequent ratification by the U.S. Senate has produced a wave of dissatisfaction, especially among Lyman's opposition and the military, who believe the Soviets cannot be trusted.
A Pentagon insider, United States Marine Corps Colonel "Jiggs" Casey (the Director of the Joint Staff), stumbles on evidence that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by the charismatic Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, intend to stage a coup d'etat to remove Lyman and his cabinet in seven days. Under the plan a secret Army unit known as ECOMCON (Emergency COMmunications CONtrol) will seize control of the country's telephone, radio, and television networks, while Congress is prevented from implementing the treaty. Although personally opposed to Lyman's policies, Casey is appalled by the plot and alerts Lyman, who gathers a circle of trusted advisors to investigate: Secret Service White House Detail Chief Art Corwin, Treasury Secretary Christopher Todd, advisor Paul Girard, and Senator Raymond Clark of Georgia.
Casey uses the pretense of a social visit to General Scott's former mistress to ferret out potential secrets that can be used against Scott, in the form of indiscreet letters. Meanwhile, the alcoholic Clark is sent to Fort Bliss near El Paso, Texas, to locate the secret base, and Girard leaves for the Mediterranean to obtain a confession from Vice Admiral Barnswell, who declined to participate in the coup. Girard gets the confession in writing, but is killed when his return flight crashes, while Clark is taken captive when he reaches the secret base. However, Clark convinces the base's deputy commander, Colonel Henderson, a friend of Casey's and not party to the coup, to help him escape. They reach Washington, DC, but Henderson is abducted during a moment apart from Clark.
Lyman calls Scott to the White House to demand that he and the other plotters resign. Scott initially denies the existence of the plot, but then tacitly admits to it while denouncing the treaty. Lyman argues that a coup in America would prompt the Soviets to make a preemptive strike. Scott maintains that the American people are behind him. Lyman is on the verge of confronting Scott with the letters obtained from Scott's mistress when he decides against it and allows Scott to leave.
Scott meets the other three Joint Chiefs, demanding they stay in line and reminding them that Lyman does not seem to have concrete evidence of their plot. Somewhat reassured, the others agree to continue the plan to appear on television and radio simultaneously on the next day to denounce Lyman. However, Lyman first holds a press conference, at which he demands the men's resignations. As he is speaking, Barnswell's hand-written confession, recovered from the plane crash, is handed to him. Copies are given to Scott and the other plotters, who have no choice but to call off the coup. The film ends with an address by Lyman to American people on the country's future.
eand | Predatory
capitalism has long fuelled the American economy — the middle class
hollowed out to make the rich richer. But they don’t have any money,
savings, or income left to give. And yet the only thing that American
economy was built to do was prey. So whom will it prey on now?
Do
you see the problem? The machine was built to generate “growth” by
taking things from people — their money, their time, their imagination,
their courage, their empathy — and in return jacking up the price of the
basics of life, healthcare, education, finance, to astronomical prices.
Not exactly a fair trade to begin with. But
people now have nothing left to give. They have been bled dry. So what
happens now? What will the machine consume to keep itself going?
Well,
whom can it prey on now? Maybe more camps will have to be built, and
more kids put in them, and each one made a profit center. Maybe all
those private prisons will have to be filled up with dissidents. Maybe
all those tech companies will start reporting you as dangerous. Maybe
all those TV shows you watch will be used to make a profile of whether
or not you are a good citizen. It’s not a coincidence they built
concentration camps in old Walmarts — it’s a perfect metaphor for an
implosive economy.
The point is this. Profits
have to propped up, by more and more violent and coercive means,
because America’s economy isn’t really capable of producing much that is
real or valuable anymore. Nobody in the world really wants to
buy what America has to sell — guns, Facebook ads, and greed, to put
simply. But America’s own broken middle class doesn’t have anything left
to give now. So the ways that such a predatory economy can “grow” are
few now: by imprisoning people for profit, by abusing them for profit,
by expropriating their wealth, or by putting them to work. What are
those ways, in particular?
So the third thing “implosion” implies is a violent, spectacular process.
When a society is collapsing, it is run by plutocrats. But when a
society is imploding, it is run by mafias and warlords. That is
basically where America is, though maybe it wouldn’t like to admit it.
What other kinds of people smile as kids are shot in schools? Mafias and
warlords exact their tribute. It doesn’t matter who pays, or whether
payment is made in gold, silver, or bodies — it only matters that the
mafias are paid.
That is why
predation is now taking on a very different tone now. It is going from
the hidden, soft predation of crap jobs and raiding pension funds and
shifting debt from bailed out hedge funds onto students — to something
harder, something more lethal, whose teeth and claws are finally being
revealed. So implosion means, in this second sense, that predatory
institutions are ready to use hard force, real violence, to accomplish
their means. They are ready to consume everything that is left now, with
very real abuse and systematic human rights violations. Hence, the
camps.
But
the camps are just a beginning. For an economy which has no good way
left to grow, which makes mostly nothing the world wants, and whose
people are too poor to buy what the world makes, the endgame is clear.Such
an economy is going to have start resorting to more and more
spectacularly violent means of repression and subjugation, to alleviate
fast-spreading poverty. So today’s camps, as terrible as they are, are only a starting point, not an end point.
tomdispatch | For almost 20 years, U.S. drone warfare was largely
one-sided. Unlike Afghans and Yemenis, Iraqis and Somalis, Americans
never had to worry about lethal robots hovering overhead and raining
down missiles. Until, that is, one appeared in the skies above Florida.
But that’s a story for later. For now, let’s focus on a 2017 executive order issued by President Trump, part of his second attempt
at a travel ban directed primarily at citizens of Muslim-majority
nations. It begins: “It is the policy of the United States to protect
its citizens from terrorist attacks.”
That sentence would be repeated in a January report from
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States.” Meant to strengthen the president’s case for the travel
ban, it was panned for its methodological flaws, pilloried for its inaccuracies,
and would even spur a lawsuit by the civil rights organization, Muslim
Advocates, and the watchdog group, Democracy Forward Foundation. In
their complaint,
those groups contend that the report was “biased, misleading, and
incomplete” and “manipulates information to support its anti-immigrant
and anti-Muslim conclusions.”
To bolster the president’s arguments for restricting the entry of
foreigners into the United States, the DOJ/DHS analysis contained a
collection of case summaries. Examples included: the Sudanese national
who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support
to ISIS”; the Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to
kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; the
Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS
and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian
regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,”
an al-Qaeda offshoot.
Such cases cited in the report, hardly spectacular terror incidents,
were evidently calculated to sow fears by offering a list of convicted
suspects with Muslim-sounding names. But the authors of the report
simply looked in the wrong places. They could have found startling
summaries of truly audacious attacks against the homeland in a
collection of U.S. military documents from 2016 obtained by TomDispatch via
the Freedom of Information Act. Those files detail a plethora of
shocking acts of terrorism across the United States including mass
poisonings, the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and that
“People’s Armed Liberation (PAL) attack on U.S. Central Command
(USCENTCOM) headquarters in Tampa, Florida, [by] a drone-launched
missile.”
That’s right! A drone-launched missile attack! On CENTCOM’s Florida headquarters! By a terrorist group known as PAL!
Wondering how you missed the resulting 24/7 media bonanza, the screaming front page headlines in the New York Times, the hysterics on Fox & Friends, the president’s hurricane of tweets?
Well, there’s a simple explanation. That attack doesn’t actually
happen until May 2020. Or so says the summary of the 33rd annual Joint
Land, Air, and Sea Strategic Special Program (JLASS-SP), an elaborate
war game carried out in 2016 by students and faculty from the U.S.
military’s war colleges, the training grounds for its future generals
and admirals.
It turns the clock back to April 2, 1917---the date when the Woodrow
Wilson foolishly declared war on Germany and led America into a bloody
cauldron on the Western Front that had absolutely no bearing on its
national security; and thereafter into a destructive "peace" at
Versailles that guaranteed perpetual war.
America First, when followed to its logical and correct conclusion,
would put the War Capital of the world out of business; it would result
in a massive slashing of the hideously bloated national security budget;
it would ash-can the endless complex of think-tanks, NGOs, intelligence
contractors and lobbyists for foreign interests.
We refer, of course, to the likes of the Podesta brothers, Paul
Manafort and 20,000 more like and similar operators and racketeers.
Indeed, having it way with the Warfare State, America First would bring a
hair-curling recession to the Imperial City which would make Youngstown
Ohio look like a model of prosperity.
To be sure, we seriously doubt that the Donald had any idea of where
American First was leading him when he stumbled upon the slogan; and we
are afraid that his xenophobic fear-mongering about the Mexican border
would have distracted him, anyway.
But the Deep State was taking no chances. That's why the partisan
shills who ran the CIA and FBI under Obama were able to launch their
insidious anti-Trump witchunt as an "insurance policy" in July 2016; and
it's also why the Obama Administration pulled out all the stops in its
waning days in office to insure that the verdict of November 8 would be
re-litigated on the back of the Russian Meddling story.
In Part 3 we intend to summarize the ludicrously threadbare nature of
the whole Mueller investigation, but suffice it here to note the
Smoking Bunker Buster that puts the lie to the whole scam.
To wit, it is absolutely the fact that neither Donald Trump, nor his
sons, nor his daughter and son-in-law went to Russia at any time after
the Donald's unlikely campaign was launched in June 2015. At that time
no one including Vlad Putin gave him a snowball's chance of ending up in
the Oval Office; and since then Trump has proven that no one matters in
his comings and goings except the Donald and his family.
So if there was any collusion after the announcement, it had to be by
email or phone between the Trumps and high state officials in the
Kremlin. That is to say, every word of such conversations would be
stored in the vast NSA (national security agency) server farms where
everything which crosses the worldwide web gets snatched and stored.
Needless to say, if Robert Mueller were truly doing god's work in
behalf of the rule of law and American democracy, he would have
ordered-up the NSA taps on day one, and resolved the matter of
"collusion" with the Russians within one week's time.
That he didn't do because no such taps exist and no such
conversations between the Trumps and the Russian state ever happened.
Period. Full stop.
To the contrary, the entire prolonged, ballyhooed, ever-expanding,
leak-ridden, media-fueling Mueller investigation is designed to mortally
wound Donald Trump and drive him from office. That is, to crush America
First in its infancy and to obliterate even the crude and half-baked
form in which its emerged from the modest gray matter nested under the
Orange Comb-Over. The Deep State Closes In On The Donald Part 1
strategic-culture |Although
AFRICOM is mandated to conduct “stability operations,” there is
evidence that the command has engaged in fomenting military coups in
Africa. In 2009, a group of Guinean army officers who attempted to
assassinate Guinea's President, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, were
operating under orders of US Special Forces assigned to the US Africa
Command (AFRICOM) and French military intelligence personnel. Camara,
himself, seized power in a December 2008 coup in following the death of
Guinea's President Lansana Conte.
Camara
had apparently signed a deal with China for that nation to take over
bauxite mining contracts from US and French companies with the promise
that China would refine bauxite into aluminum by building a factory in
Guinea. The Americans and French previously exported raw bauxite to
smelters abroad. The offer of the Chinese to smelter bauxite in Guinea,
with the promise of well-paying jobs for the impoverished nation, was
too much for France and the United States and a "hit" was ordered on
Camara, using assets in the Guinean military trained by AFRICOM in
Guinea, Germany, and the United States.
The
National Security Agency, America’s top signals intelligence
(SIGINT)-gathering agency, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars
in training intercept operators in a number of languages, including
those spoken in Africa. AFRICOM has operated a redundant and dual
linguist training program, mirroring the NSA program. AFRICOM has spent
millions needlessly duplicating the NSA in training speakers and to be
fluent in Bemba, Bete, Ebira, Fon, Gogo, Kalenjin, Kamba, Luba-Katanga,
Mbundu/Umbundu, Nyanja, Sango, Sukuma, Tsonga/Tonga, Amharic, Dinka,
Somali, Tigrinya, and Swahili. This is just one of many examples by
which AFRICOM has served as a complete waste of money in duplicative
efforts undertaken by other government agencies and elements.
The
June 4, 2017 strangling death in Bamako, Mali of US Army Green Beret
Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar by two US Navy SEALs, all deployed under
AFRICOM’s direction, was linked to Melgar’s discovery that the two Navy
personnel were pocketing official funds used by AFRICOM to pay off
informants in the West African country. The fraud was yet another
example of the culture of malfeasance present among AFRICOM’s ranks.
thenation | Governing through the counterinsurgency warfare paradigm has, since 9/11, been distilled into three core strategies.
First, bulk collect everything about everyone in the population. This
is the model of NSA’s TREASURE MAP program: “every single end device
that is connected to the Internet somewhere in the world—every
smartphone, tablet and computer” must be known. The data of everyone,
especially the neutral or passive majority, is crucial because that is
the only way to identify accurately the active minority. This has been
turned on the American population since 9/11.
Second, identify and eradicate the revolutionary minority. Total
information about the entire population is what makes it possible to
discriminate between friend and foe. Once suspicion attaches,
individuals must be treated severely to extract all possible
intelligence, with enhanced interrogation techniques if necessary; and
if they are revealed to belong to the active minority, they must be
disposed of through detention, rendition, deportation, or targeted
assassination. Unlike conventional soldiers, these minorities are
dangerous not because of their physical presence on a battlefield, but
because of their ideology and allegiances.
Third, the passive majority must be assuaged. Remember, in this new way of seeing, the population is the
battlefield. Its hearts and minds must be assured. In the digital age,
this can be achieved, first, by offering distractions and entertainment:
a rich new environment of YouTubes and NetFlix, Facebook posts and
Tweets, Amazon Prime, Second, by targeting enhanced content (such as
sermons by moderate imams) to deradicalize susceptible persons—in other
words, by deploying new digital techniques of psychological warfare and
propaganda. Third, now, with a reality-TV presidential style that turns
every new day into, in Donald Trump’s words, “a new episode of a
television show.”
These three maxims have been deployed aggressively in the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan. But in a historical development that can only be
described, tragically, as poetic justice, this counterinsurgency
paradigm has been domesticated. Gradually—and increasingly—these
strategies have come to shape the way that we, in the United States,
govern ourselves domestically. It is Americans who have become the
target of their own counterinsurgency strategies: total-information
awareness, targeted extraction of minority suspects, and the continuous
effort to prevent majority citizens from sympathizing in any way with
any minorities.
theintercept |The White House press secretary did not directly dispute the revelation
that Blackwater founder Erik Prince and former Iran-Contra figure
Oliver North pitched a plan to develop a private spy network to members
of the Trump administration.
The plan, detailed in a story broken by The Intercept
on Monday, is to develop a private intelligence network to counter
perceived “deep state” enemies within the ranks of government. Prince
denied the report, and North did not respond to The Intercept’s request
for comment.
“I’m not aware of any plans for something of that definition or anything similar to that at this time,” said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, in response to a question from CBS News’s Major Garrett about the story.
Garrett followed up to ask if President Donald Trump “would be
opposed” to an outside spy network operating on his behalf. Sanders said
she was unaware.
Garrett asked to Sanders to confirm whether any administration official had been briefed on such a network.
“I’m not going to answer some random hypothetical. Did some random
person off the street come in and say something? I don’t know,” Sanders said.
And finally, Garrett asked if it was an idea Trump would consider.
“Again, I haven’t asked him, but its not something that’s currently in the works,” Sanders replied.
A White House official later told
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman that the proposal was indeed
pitched to the Trump administration, but that there is no sign the
president himself was briefed.
wikileaks |Hivesolves a critical problem for the malware operators at the CIA. Even the most sophisticated malware implant on a target computer is useless if there is no way for it to communicate with its operators in a secure manner that does not draw attention. UsingHiveeven if an implant is discovered on a target computer, attributing it to the CIA is difficult by just looking at the communication of the malware with other servers on the internet.Hiveprovides a covert communications platform for a whole range of CIA malware to send exfiltrated information to CIA servers and to receive new instructions from operators at the CIA.
Hivecan serve multiple operations using multiple implants on target computers. Each operation anonymously registers at least one cover domain (e.g. "perfectly-boring-looking-domain.com") for its own use. The server running the domain website is rented from commercial hosting providers as a VPS (virtual private server) and its software is customized according to CIA specifications. These servers are the public-facing side of the CIA back-end infrastructure and act as a relay for HTTP(S) traffic over a VPN connection to a "hidden" CIA server called'Blot'.
The cover domain delivers 'innocent' content if somebody browses it by chance. A visitor will not suspect that it is anything else but a normal website. The only peculiarity is not visible to non-technical users - a HTTPS server option that is not widely used:Optional Client Authentication. ButHiveuses the uncommonOptional Client Authenticationso that the user browsing the website is not required to authenticate - it is optional. But implants talking toHivedo authenticate themselves and can therefore be detected by theBlotserver. Traffic from implants is sent to an implant operator management gateway calledHoneycomb(see graphic above) while all other traffic go to a cover server that delivers the insuspicious content for all other users.
Digital certificates for the authentication of implants are generated by the CIA impersonating existing entities. The three examples included in the source code build a fake certificate for the anti-virus companyKaspersky Laboratory, Moscowpretending to be signed byThawte Premium Server CA, Cape Town. In this way, if the target organization looks at the network traffic coming out of its network, it is likely to misattribute the CIA exfiltration of data to uninvolved entities whose identities have been impersonated.
truthdig | None of the reforms, increased training, diversity programs, community outreach and gimmicks such as body cameras have blunted America’s deadly police assault, especially against poor people of color. Police forces in the United States - which, according to The Washington Post, have fatally shot 782 people this year - are unaccountable, militarized monstrosities that spread fear and terror in poor communities.
By comparison, police in England and Wales killed 62 people in the 27 years between the start of 1990 and the end of 2016.
Police officers have become rogue predators in impoverished communities. Under U.S. forfeiture laws,
police indiscriminately seize money, real estate, automobiles and other
assets. In many cities, traffic, parking and other fines are little
more than legalized extortion that funds local government and turns
jails into debtor prisons.
Because of a failed court system, millions of young men and women are railroaded into prison, many for nonviolent offenses.
SWAT teams with military weapons burst into homes often under warrants
for nonviolent offenses, sometimes shooting those inside. Trigger-happy
cops pump multiple rounds into the backs of unarmed men and women and
are rarely charged with murder. And for poor Americans, basic
constitutional rights, including due process, were effectively abolished
decades ago.
Jonathan Simon’s “Governing Through Crime” and Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow”
point out that what is defined and targeted as criminal activity by the
police and the courts is largely determined by racial inequality and
class, and most importantly by the potential of targeted groups to cause
social and political unrest. Criminal policy, as sociologist Alex S.
Vitale writes in his new book, “The End of Policing,” “is structured around the use of punishment to manage the ‘dangerous classes,’ masquerading as a system of justice.”
The criminal justice system, at the same time, refuses to hold Wall
Street banks, corporations and oligarchs accountable for crimes that
have caused incalculable damage to the global economy and the ecosystem.
None of the bankers who committed massive acts of fraud and
were responsible for the financial collapse in 2008 have gone to prison
even though their crimes resulted in widespread unemployment, millions
of evictions and foreclosures, homelessness, bankruptcies and the
looting of the U.S. Treasury to bail out financial speculators at
taxpayer expense. We live in a two-tiered legal system,
one in which poor people are harassed, arrested and jailed for absurd
infractions, such as selling loose cigarettes—which led to Eric Garner
being choked to death by a New York City policeman in 2014—while crimes
of appalling magnitude that wiped out 40 percent of the world’s wealth
are dealt with through tepid administrative controls, symbolic fines and
civil enforcement.
The grotesque distortions of the judicial system and the
aggressive war on the poor by the police will get worse under President
Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There has been a rollback of President Barack Obama’s 2015 restrictions on the 1033 Program,
a 1989 congressional action that allows the transfer of military
weaponry, including grenade launchers, armored personnel carriers and
.50-caliber machine guns, from the federal government to local police
forces. Since 1997, the Department of Defense has turned over a
staggering $5.1 billion in military hardware to police departments.
The Trump administration also is resurrecting private prisons in the
federal prison system, accelerating the so-called war on drugs, stacking
the courts with right-wing “law and order” judges and preaching the
divisive politics of punishment and retribution. Police unions
enthusiastically embrace these actions, seeing in them a return to the
Wild West mentality that characterized the brutality of police
departments in the 1960s and 1970s, when radicals, especially black
radicals, were murdered with impunity at the hands of law enforcement. The Praetorian Guard
of the elites, as in all totalitarian systems, will soon be beyond the
reach of the law. As Vitale writes in his book, “Our entire criminal
justice system has become a gigantic revenge factory.”
The arguments—including the racist one about “superpredators“—used
to justify the expansion of police power have no credibility, as the
gun violence in south Chicago, abject failure of the war on drugs and
vast expansion of the prison system over the last 40 years illustrate.
The problem is not ultimately in policing techniques and procedures; it
is in the increasing reliance on the police as a form of social control
to buttress a system of corporate capitalism that has turned the working
poor into modern-day serfs and abandoned whole segments of the society.
Government no longer makes any attempt to ameliorate racial and
economic inequality. Instead, it criminalizes poverty. It has turned the
poor into one more cash crop for the rich.
antiwar | But Patrick Meehan, chairman of the US Congressional committee that
drew up the report, said “While I recognize there is little evidence at
this moment to suggest Boko Haram is planning attacks against the [US]
homeland, lack of evidence does not mean it cannot happen.”
Washington’s interest in Africa goes back at least to 2007, when the
Pentagon’s AFRICOM was formed, long before rebels in Libya or militants
in Mali were a threats to exaggerate.
The dominant way of thinking in Washington is that the US should be
involved in every corner of the planet, and the pressure to always “do
something” is intense.
But as Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations recently commented
with regards to the intervention in Mali, “Some things that happen on
the other 94% of the earth that isn’t the US, has nothing to do with the
US, nor requires a US response.”
Counterpunch | Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words
Donald Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American
Ranger killed in Niger, in northwest Africa, in early October. Not only
was this coverage tedious, it was largely pointless. We know Trump is a
clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to pounce on
him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It’s not news.
But it was useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what
really needs attention: the U.S. government’s perpetual war.
The media’s efforts should have been devoted to exploring — really exploring — why Rangers (and drones) are in Niger at all. (This is typical of the establishment media’s explanation.)
That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that
see themselves merely as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For
them, it’s all so simple: a U.S president (even one they despise) has
put or left military forces in a foreign country — no justification
required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in
turn means that if they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our
way of life. End of story.
Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting
view, say, from an analyst who would question the dogma that inserting
American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a warlord proclaims his allegiance to ISIS
is in the “national interest.” Patriotic media companies have no wish
to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat
to Americans who were left to mind their own business.
Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who
might point out that the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali
is directly related to the U.S. and NATO bombing of Libya, which
enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular
regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011,
besides producing Qaddafi’s grisly murder and turning Libya into a
nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons and fanatical guerrillas
from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel — as well as Syria. Since
then the U.S. government has been helping the French to “stabilize” its
former colony Mali with surveillance drones and Rangers based in Niger.
Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and Secretary of State
Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of U.S. intervention in Libya.) Need I remind you that the U.S./NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a lie? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention was the biggest mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see articles here, here, and here.)
local10 |President Donald Trump told U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson's
widow Tuesday that "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it
happens, it hurts anyway," when he died serving in northwestern Africa,
according to U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Florida.
"Yeah, he said that," Wilson said. "So insensitive. He should have not have said that. He shouldn't have said it."
The president called about 4:45 p.m. and spoke to Johnson's pregnant
widow, Myeshia Johnson, for about five minutes. She is a mother to
Johnson's surviving 2-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter. The
conversation happened before Johnson's remains arrived at Miami
International Airport on a commercial Delta Airlines flight.
"The president's conversations with the
families of American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice are
private," a top advisor later told Local 10 News.
Wilson watched as the widow,
who is expecting their third baby in January, leaned over the U.S. flag
that was draping Johnson's casket. Her pregnant belly was shaking
against the casket as she sobbed uncontrollably. Their daughter stood
next to her stoically. Their toddler waited in the arms of a relative.
There was silence.
Local politicians, police officers and
firefighters lined up to honor Johnson for his service and for the
efforts and discipline that got the former Walmart employee to defy all
odds and become a 25-year-old member of the 3rd Special Forces Group at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Johnson, who participated in a mentorship
program Wilson founded in 1993, died during a mission fighting alongside
Green Berets. Islamic militants ambushed them on Oct. 4
with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. The team reportedly didn't have overhead armed air cover and was in unarmored pickup trucks. Reuters reported the lack of planning upset the French.
Trump didn't discuss any of the details of
the ambush or say that the Pentagon was conducting an investigation.
Instead, he focused on questions about whether or not he had offered his
condolences to the families of the fallen.
TomDispatch | As in Baghdad, so in Baltimore.
It’s connected, you see. Scholars, pundits, politicians, most of us in
fact like our worlds to remain discretely and comfortably separated.
That’s why so few articles, reports, or op-ed columns even think to link
police violence at home to our imperial pursuits abroad or the
militarization of the policing of urban America to our wars across the
Greater Middle East and Africa. I mean, how many profiles of the Black
Lives Matter movement even mention America’s 16-year war on terror
across huge swaths of the planet? Conversely, can you remember a foreign
policy piece that cited Ferguson? I doubt it.
Nonetheless, take a moment to consider the ways in which
counterinsurgency abroad and urban policing at home might, in these
years, have come to resemble each other and might actually be connected
phenomena:
*The degradations involved: So often, both counterinsurgency
and urban policing involve countless routine humiliations of a mostly
innocent populace. No matter how we’ve cloaked the terms --
“partnering,” “advising,” “assisting,” and so on -- the American
military has acted like an occupier of Iraq and Afghanistan in these
years. Those thousands of ubiquitous post-invasion U.S. Army foot and
vehicle patrols in both countries tended to highlight the lack of
sovereignty of their peoples. Similarly, as long ago as 1966, author
James Baldwin recognized
that New York City’s ghettoes resembled, in his phrase, “occupied
territory.” In that regard, matters have only worsened since. Just ask the black community in Baltimore or for that matter Ferguson, Missouri. It’s hard to deny America’s police are becoming progressively more defiant; just last month St. Louis cops taunted protestors by chanting “whose streets? Our
streets,” at a gathering crowd. Pardon me, but since when has it been
okay for police to rule America’s streets? Aren’t they there to protect
and serve us? Something tells me the exceedingly libertarian Founding
Fathers would be appalled by such arrogance.
*The racial and ethnic stereotyping. In Baghdad, many U.S. troops called the locals hajis, ragheads, or worse still, sandniggers.
There should be no surprise in that. The frustrations involved in
occupation duty and the fear of death inherent in counterinsurgency
campaigns lead soldiers to stereotype, and sometimes even hate, the
populations they’re (doctrinally)
supposed to protect. Ordinary Iraqis or Afghans became the enemy, an
“other,” worthy only of racial pejoratives and (sometimes) petty
cruelties. Sound familiar? Listen to the private conversations of
America’s exasperated urban police, or the occasionally public insults
they throw at the population they’re paid to “protect.” I, for one,
can’t forget the video
of an infuriated white officer taunting Ferguson protestors: “Bring it
on, you f**king animals!” Or how about a white Staten Island cop caught
on the phone bragging
to his girlfriend about how he’d framed a young black man or, in his
words, “fried another nigger.” Dehumanization of the enemy, either at
home or abroad, is as old as empire itself.
*The searches: Searches, searches, and yet more searches.
Back in the day in Iraq -- I’m speaking of 2006 and 2007 -- we didn’t
exactly need a search warrant to look anywhere we pleased. The Iraqi
courts, police, and judicial system were then barely operational. We
searched houses, shacks, apartments, and high rises for weapons,
explosives, or other “contraband.” No family -- guilty or innocent (and
they were nearly all innocent) -- was safe from the small, daily
indignities of a military search. Back here in the U.S., a similar
phenomenon rules, as it has since the “war on drugs” era of the 1980s.
It’s now routine for police SWAT teams to execute rubber-stamped or “no knock” search warrants on suspected drug dealers’ homes (often only for marijuana
stashes) with an aggressiveness most soldiers from our distant wars
would applaud. Then there are the millions of random, warrantless, body
searches on America’s urban, often minority-laden streets. Take New
York, for example, where a discriminatory regime
of “stop-and-frisk” tactics terrorized blacks and Hispanics for
decades. Millions of (mostly) minority youths were halted and searched
by New York police officers who had to cite
only such opaque explanations as “furtive movements,” or “fits relevant
description” -- hardly explicit probable cause -- to execute such daily
indignities. As numerous studies have shown (and a judicial ruling found), such “stop-and-frisk” procedures were discriminatory and likely unconstitutional.
moonofalabama | It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture
through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media
through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the
countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The
military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power,
controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the
military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts
of the power triangle,
the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more
visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet
on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price.
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate
was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his
first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to
counter them and the military took control of the White House. The
anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows
the rule of law.
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three military men [...] ... Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn’t. ... [It]
leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military
“needs” always rated more important than domestic ones. ... It
is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy
mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his
presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring.
They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our
political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a
dangerous temptation.
The country has fallen to that temptation even on social-economic issues:
In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville
this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral
authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the
commander in chief did. ... On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.
tomdispatch |By Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College and the author of 14 books including, most
recently, The Race for What’s Left. He is currently completing work on a new book, All Hell Breaking Loose, on climate change and American national security. Originally published at TomDispatch
Deployed to the Houston area to assist in Hurricane Harvey relief
efforts, U.S. military forces hadn’t even completed their assignments
when they were hurriedly dispatched to Florida, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands to face Irma, the fiercest hurricane ever recorded
in the Atlantic Ocean. Florida Governor Rick Scott, who had sent members
of the state National Guard to devastated Houston, anxiously recalled
them while putting in place emergency measures for his own state. A
small flotilla of naval vessels, originally sent to waters off Texas,
was similarly redirected
to the Caribbean, while specialized combat units drawn from as far
afield as Colorado, Illinois, and Rhode Island were rushed to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands. Meanwhile, members of the California
National Guard were being mobilized to fight wildfires raging across that state (as across much of the West) during its hottest summer on record.
Think of this as the new face of homeland security: containing the
damage to America’s seacoasts, forests, and other vulnerable areas
caused by extreme weather events made all the more frequent and destructive
thanks to climate change. This is a “war” that won’t have a name — not
yet, not in the Trump era, but it will be no less real for that. “The
firepower of the federal government” was being trained on Harvey, as
William Brock Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), put it
in a blunt expression of this warlike approach. But don’t expect any of
the military officials involved in such efforts to identify climate
change as the source of their new strategic orientation, not while
Commander in Chief Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office refusing to acknowledge the reality of global warming or its role in heightening the intensity of major storms; not while he continues to stock his administration, top to bottom, with climate-change deniers.
Until Trump moved into the White House, however, senior military officers in the Pentagon were speaking openly
of the threats posed to American security by climate change and how
that phenomenon might alter the very nature of their work. Though mum’s
the word today, since the early years of this century military
officials have regularly focused on and discussed such matters, issuing
striking warnings
about an impending increase in extreme weather events — hurricanes,
incessant rainfalls, protracted heat waves, and droughts — and ways in
which that would mean an ever-expanding domestic role for the military
in both disaster response and planning for an extreme future.
That future, of course, is now. Like other well-informed people,
senior military officials are perfectly aware that it’s difficult to
attribute any given storm, Harvey and Irma included, to human-caused
climate change with 100% confidence. But they also know that hurricanes
draw their fierce energy from the heat of tropical waters, and that
global warming is raising
the temperatures of those waters. It’s making storms like Harvey and
Irma, when they do occur, ever more powerful and destructive. “As
greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global
temperatures increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating,”
the Department of Defense (DoD) bluntly explained
in the Quadrennial Defense Review, a 2014 synopsis of defense policy.
This, it added, “may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of
future missions, including defense support to civil authorities” — just
the sort of crisis we’ve been witnessing over these last weeks.
As this statement suggests, any increase in climate-related extreme
events striking U.S. territory will inevitably lead to a commensurate
rise in American military support for civilian agencies, diverting key
assets — troops and equipment — from elsewhere. While the Pentagon can
certainly devote substantial capabilities to a small number of
short-term emergencies, the multiplication and prolongation of such
events, now clearly beginning to occur, will require a substantial
commitment of forces, which, in time, will mean a major reorientation of
U.S. security policy for the climate change era. This may not be
something the White House is prepared to do today, but it may soon find
itself with little choice, especiallysinceit seems so intent on crippling all civilian governmental efforts related to climate change.
Adult obesity around the world
-
A new study shows that waistlines are widening almost everywhere
https://t.co/jP0NoV2Eno 👇
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 9, 2024
Kitty, I Farted
-
Hello Loves
In France, ChatGPT is phonetically similar to *Chat, Je pete, *which means
female cat (kitty), I farted. New programs are worrying over jobs ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...