empire watch, featured, Syria, United States
Comments 62

Syria Bombing Exposes Cracks in American Facade

by Kit

52753262-swervingcarunknown2

Yesterday, the USA committed what is – essentially – an act of war against the legitimate government of Syria. The official position is that, due to a breakdown in communication (or possibly bad intelligence), the US Air Force – with Australian support – bombed SAA men and vehicles resulting in the deaths of at least 60 Syrian soldiers.

The Russian’s are, understandably, incensed. Accusing the Americans of “assisting ISIS” and describing it as an “intentional provocation”, all of which ties into a speech Putin gave yesterday, in which he questioned American commitment to the deal.

But why did this attack happen? Assuming it wasn’t just straight incompetence, which is always a possibility when dealing with an American military far more concerned with being expensive than efficient, what was the motivation? Why has the Obama administration worked for weeks to get this deal together, only for the USAF to bomb Syrian soldiers days into the ceasefire? Why has Kerry spent hours carefully negotiating with Sergei Lavrov, only for Samantha Power to immediately launch into abusive and hysterical language the moment any even minor conflict occurs?

The only logical position to take is that, for some reason, some parts of the American political or military establishment are trying to scupper the ceasefire before it can take hold. To smother peace in its cradle.

This is just the latest in a long line of evidence that suggests, tempting and easy as it is to see American power as monolithic, there are factions at work within the heart of the Empire. It has been suggested, many times, that any cracks in Washington run along party political or institutional lines. Democrats vs. Republicans. The FBI vs. the CIA. It has been mooted that Edward Snowden is a CIA agent out to discredit the NSA. I doubt any breaks run along such neatly defined borders. But we can say there are at least two different groups, with different agendas, ideologies and even realities. For now we shall call them the Realists, and the Lunatics.

The Realists are largely Old School diplomats, or veterans of the Cold War. Think Henry Kissinger, who loudly and publicly decried the US’s approach in Ukraine, and even attacked the government’s motives in the news (Kissinger has been a proponent of increased Russian-American cooperation since heading the Track II program). Think Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few voices of reason on Syria during Obama’s “red line” nonsense. John Kerry, likewise, obviously comes from this same school. Not decent or moral people by any means, but diplomats and pragmatists. Disdaining violence and chaos, not out of empathy, but as waste of time and resources that reflects badly on their skill as politicians. They deal in realpolitik, and can be counted on to always serve their own best interest and at least having some semblance of a notion of veridical reality.

The Lunatics are comparatively new on this stage, spiritual successors to the old-guard Neo-cons, they have been weened on stories of American exceptionalism and see themselves as morally, intellectually and emotionally superior. They believe they can simply create reality through their words, and cannot be shaken from this belief no matter how much the world refuses to shape itself around their certitudes. Look at Samantha Power. Or Victoria Nuland. Or Robert Kagan. They are dangerous because, no matter what, they believe in the moral rectitude of their actions. They cannot see their actions from an outside perspective, or appreciate the position of their supposed “adversary”. They are dangerous because they refuse to deal with the real world. They are black and white creatures in a grey universe.

Watch the following video.

This is the perfect example of what we are talking about, here we have an emotional, irrational ideologue arguing with a pragmatic psychopath. A Lunatic versus a Realist. When Carl Bernstein, yes the Carl Bernstein, argues that “we should morally isolate Russia”, he is confronted with a pragmatist asking him “How?”. It’s a question he never tries to answer.

Interestingly, in this video you hear the first references to “isolating” Russia – a theme that was heavily used by pundits all across the MSM just a couple of years later, during the Ukraine crisis. Ukraine was obviously a neocon plan to try and weaken Russia, in response to Russia’s checking of their war in Syria, and was equally obviously never going to work. Again, when Brzezinski asks how they intend to “isolate” Russia from China or the rest of their partners and allies, he receives no answer based in any kind of reality.

The plan to “isolate” Russia (both morally and strategically) failed…but this has never been acknowledged. Instead, pundits politicians and their proxies, both above and below the line, in the press have simply declared Russia to be “isolated” and “a pariah state”. Regardless of the conflict with reality.

This goes hand-in-hand with Karl Rove’s famous claim that, as an Empire, when America acts it “creates reality”. There are people within the corridors of American power who genuinely believe that this is literally true. That they can shape the world alone, with no checks or balances or compromises. That they have the controls of the game, and everyone is just an NPC awaiting their input. They don’t see that they can push Russia into starting WWIII, because they don’t credit that anyone can take any action without their say-so. It is why so many of their plans fall apart. It is why Syria and Ukraine are in chaos.

Once you factor in that there are different teams pushing for different agendas in Washington, the world begins to make more sense. That’s why the US is currently supporting the Kurds, the Turks and ISIS in Syria..despite the fact they are all (notionally) in conflict with each other. It’s why they go to all the trouble of breaking Ukraine into pieces, but then stop short of arming their Nazi proxies. It’s why Obama can be instructed to lay down a “red line”, but told to stand-down when Assad crosses that line.

American foreign policy is a speeding car with two people fighting over the steering wheel, shooting off in a direction neither intends. The combat between these factions plays out across different battlefields. You can see it through the “leaks” that materialise that discredit and expose one another. Through deals that are made and then broken, and lines that then crossed with no consequences. Through the splintering, confused narratives that surround who is to blame – and why – for terrorist attacks (see the Boston bombing). And, of course, through Presidential elections.

Hillary Clinton is the war party candidate – she has made that clear. Whether that is through actual idealist commitment to “the cause”, or just compulsive and destructive self-interest is unclear, and frankly irrelevant. She is the new face of lunatic neo-con foreign policy. It’s highly likely that her Secretary of State will be Victoria Nuland, perhaps the craziest of the crazies, and her campaign has made it clear they will “tougher” on Syria, and maybe even attack Iran.

These are insane positions. Aside from the very real threat of global incineration, America were unable to win a war in either Iraq or Afghanistan – the idea that same military would be able to take on Iran, and win, is laughable.

That is, in part, why this Presidential election has been so fractious and unpredictable. This isn’t like 2000 or 2008, when all the insiders were on the same page and the election was a formality. This time there is genuine indecision.

On the one hand you have Clinton, a decades-old Washington insider, with enough money and clout (and probably blackmail material) that she can launch herself into the race without the total approval of the intelligence and political infrastructure. Then on the other side Donald Trump, an unknown, a wild-card. Possibly he never intended or expected to be able to win, but then found is campaign being fueled by Washington insiders who dread the possibility of a Clinton-run America.

The leaks and polls and scandals bouncing back-and-forth across the surface betray the roiling movement beneath. No-one is exactly sure who “their guy” is. No one knows, definitively, which candidate will be easiest to control and the least dangerous.

And so we come full circle, to America’s bombing of the Syrian Arab Army, and the scuppering of the ceasefire.

The Realists have been working, frantically, to get an agreement done in Syria. John Kerry, one of the most prominent realists, is desperate to get a deal done soon. Why? Because there’s an election in November, and that faces us with the very real possibility of a psychotic (and possibly brain-damaged) Hillary Clinton taking over the White House with a team of crazy idealogues at her back. Obama et al know that if they leave Clinton even the tiniest sliver of a possibility of starting a war in Syria…she will take it. They need to stabilise the situation before she comes to power.

Likewise, Hillary’s backers from the Lunatic side realise how much harder it will be to start their war, if there have been any clear signs that negotiations might work. They need to undermine any ceasefire, and preferably before the election so that all the blame can be pinned on the previous administration.

The car is weaving all over road.

ADDENDUM: Echoing the questions posed by this article, Russia’s UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, asked in his speech at the UN: “Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the Pentagon or the White House?”

Advertisements

62 Comments

  1. Bruce Wayne says

    This can all be resolved with massive protests which demand that Hillary, Obama, and John Kerry be tried in the ICC. for aggression against at least 2 sovereign states.

    The SYrian people should do so and the wealth of the Hillary foundation and U.S. taxpayers can begin to repair the damage Obama has done in Syria and Lybia.

    Like

  2. JanjoukedeHaan says

    Meanwhile, the Guardian quotes the “rebels in Alleppo” (Al Nusra) complaining about those nasty Russians, Quotes American sources that want to remain anonymous, who “have reason to believe” that the SYrian Air Force was involved, and the Russians of course.
    Sickening.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This latest attack on the UN convoy has been run out as usual without any fact checking, simply ramming the US story line to the herd- get the lies out full and hard. The facts won’t matter afterwards.

    The saintly White Helmets just happened to be there to film it all and get the pictures out.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Alexander Dugin’s interpretation of the significance of the Deir ez-Zor strike:

    “THIRD WORLD WAR HAS NEVER BEEN SO CLOSE”

    http://katehon.com/article/third-world-war-has-never-been-so-close

    Here’s the nub:

    Quote begins:
    “The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

    “Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.”
    Quote ends.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The Realists are largely Old School diplomats, or veterans of the Cold War. Think Henry Kissinger, who loudly and publicly decried the US’s approach in Ukraine, and even attacked the government’s motives in the news (Kissinger has been a proponent of increased Russian-American cooperation since heading the Track II program). Think Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few voices of reason on Syria during Obama’s “red line” nonsense.

    Actually, Obama’s “red lines” was an empty threat as Jeffrey Goldberg’s interviews with him in the Atlantic Monthly revealed.

    Nobody in the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, wanted a rebel victory. Their goal was for Assad to step down as a cosmetic change that would allow Baathism to continue. As the aristocrat Tancredi says in “The Leopard”: “For things to remain the same, things will have to change.”

    In fact there was zero interest in a large-scale intervention in Syria in either civilian or military quarters. All this is documented in a NY Times article from October 22nd 2013, written when the alarums over a looming war with Syria were at their loudest, that stated “from the beginning, Mr. Obama made it clear to his aides that he did not envision an American military intervention, even as public calls mounted that year for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians from bombings.” The article stressed the role of White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough, who had frequently clashed with the hawkish Samantha Power. In contrast to Power and others with a more overtly “humanitarian intervention” perspective, McDonough “who had perhaps the closest ties to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria.” In other words, the White House policy was and is allowing the Baathists and the rebels to exhaust each other in an endless war, just as was White House policy during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

    Like

    • Once you use the NYT as a “credible source” any independent-minded or even sensible person knows that you are bullsh*t-mongering.
      Quote “… there was zero interest in a large-scale intervention in Syria in either civilian or military quarters.”

      Get out of it. How old are you? Twelve?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Then why did Obama’s admin try to get a No Fly Zone, ala Libya, in Syria? Why at every point have the US been arming these fanatics and aiding them?

      Like

  6. mikael says

    Hrmf.
    Are there still people out there that thinks this is an display of “incompetance” and was an “mistake” well, I have some Nigerian Nuklear Mud kakes to sell you, hand baked and sun dried, I swear, just as ex-general from the Imperial banana republic, did.

    All in all an truthful analyze but do NOT think Trump is any better than Hitlary or the Lord of piss and drones Obamalama, that isnt true, Trump is equally raving insane when it comes to nations He will nuke to oblivion, He have stated that several times and He backs Eretzh Israel all the way.
    Do NOT think Trump will change anything, He is no matter how sympatetic an Israel whore, and an clever one, one of the best, but people dont care, americans dont care, just make UssA great “again”.

    I wounder from time to time about our so called “alternative news sites” like RT and so on to BreitFarts, where Russians and Muslims is THE enemy.
    Why dont you know about the Turks, whom is siding with the Permerganse aka Kurds to create Kurdstan, I ges thats why Turks invaded Syria as an part of an “understanding” between all parts incl Russia.
    That is been confirmed from Turkish officials, to hinder Iran where most are Shia while Erdogan and Turkien is Wahabistic/salafists, they will never ever have Iran in the game, and that cooprates along with Israel whom is doing what They want since Russia is de facto protecting this criminal entety called Israel.

    I know we are spoon feed nonsense from all parts, and the Syrians have and is been back stabbed by Russians, Turks and UssA.
    The Russians where fully aware of this attac, I dont belive a word from the Ruskies what so ever, THEY KNEW.
    And then Why did they then let this happen, well, Israel will get whats left of Syria to the Eufrat and Kurdistan will have the rest of Syria and Iraq the maps are out there, if you bother to find it.
    Thats why the Kurds is “fighting” along with the Turks, weird isnt it despite the rethoric about “crushing” Kurds.
    And Kurds have both Israel and UssA as their protectore and will make their scam come thrue.

    And this is 100% insynk with both trump and the insane Hitlary, trump is just better when it comes to hide what His agenda is, like Syriza, talk the talk, ohh yea, we had tears in our eyes of pure enlightenemts, but what happend whan they entered the Gov. halls, NOTHING other than the continuation of the downfall of Greece, Trump is exaclty the same, NO difference what so ever.

    I think we are been played hard and brutal, I know the UssA dont care what they state, thats just words without substance and truth what so ever, I dont even watch their Videos, because I know what They will say, nonsense and people actually belive them.

    Dont be Naive.

    peace

    Like

  7. Hillary’s backers… need to undermine any ceasefire, and preferably before the election so that all the blame can be pinned on the previous administration.
    Another day, another dodgy video. This morning the Russians or the Syrian regime (or possibly neither – but you won’t read that in the Guardian) targeted a Red Crescent convoy as they unloaded humanitarian aid at Urem al-Kubra. If deliberate, this ‘egregious attack’ would constitute a war crime (if they did it.)
    I’m no journalist and I haven’t got time to take this story apart; but my gut instinct is that this story, and the timing of it, stinks. In the light of this current discussion and after saturdays ‘mistaken identity/blatant aggression’ attack – in less than a week we have our conclusion: the Lavrov-Kerry pact was set up to fail.
    Also not to be written in the Guardian (or at all in the MSM) is that the only ones (on the ground) trying to honour the ceasefire were the Regime; but rather than let it be written that the ceasefire failed due to constant violations by the various rebel groups; the ‘official narrative’ has to read that it was the Russians or Assad what did it.
    Et voila: this ‘egregious attack’ in a rebel held area; quickly blamed on the regime; the first responders are the White Helmets; confirmation via another dodgy video; blame and counter blame…
    At this stage I can’t undeniably say that it didn’t happen (certainly not the way it is being spun); nor that it is a bona fide false flag; just that we seem to being manipulated into a ‘just intervention’ in Syria; well I’m not buying and like the chlorine attacks etc; this just STINKS, STINKS, STINKS!

    Like

  8. Why, if Kerry is so intent on making some kind of deal, is his master Barack Hussein “Nobel Peace Prizident” Obama now going all out in an attempt to make Killary win? That his campaign has resulted in Trump’s poll numbers surging is neither here nor there.

    The only real conflict in American politics is between the military industrial complex and those who want to make money by means other than war. Trump, as a businessman, believes that he can profit better via trade, while the military-industrial complex, which has seen twenty six years of nonstop war as an enormous boom, is unwilling to let go of the bonanza. That’s the only conflict here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Trump, as a businessman, believes that he can profit better via trade, while the military-industrial complex, which has seen twenty six years of nonstop war as an enormous boom, is unwilling to let go of the bonanza.

      I agree, it’s a case of pure self-interest in conflict with pyschotic, self-destructive need to dominate.

      Like

  9. michaelk says

    This piece, though very depressing, sort of sums up what’s happening globally. How dangerous things are. How we’re moving along a slick and bloody path towards something even worse than Syria. The momentum is already built into the system. It’s a structural problem and threat, the move towards conflict/war with Russia and China. Which is why it’s gonna be so hard to reverse or avoid, or stop. It isn’t an accident. Our leaders aren’t sleepwalking or incompetent. War will be a result of the things they believe and think and the actions they take, as certainly as the sun rising. And ordinary people have close to no real influence on them anymore, if they ever had in relation to starting wars.

    Knowing Russia and the Russians, the question Roberts raises, will they buckle and surrender to the Americans, is easy to answer. No, they won’t surrender, never in a million years. If the Americans believe this, that they can pressure and force the Russians to abandon self-government, independence and sovereignty, and allow the Americans to ‘occupy’ Russia, exploit its people and resources, cut in up into more reasonable and manageble pieces, fully integrate Russia and then China into ‘globalization’ which meand Americanisation, become part of the American Empire and bowing to Grand Imperial Strategy… if the Americans think this’ll happen without a global war, then they understand the Russians even less than they appear to.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/will-russia-surrender/5546711

    Liked by 1 person

  10. RAF Reaper drones were involved in the weekend airstrike that killed at least 62 Syrian government troops and threatened the fragile truce in the country, the Ministry of Defence has said.

    The British military is cooperating fully with an investigation by the US-led coalition into the incident, which led to dozens of soldiers being killed and injured, according to Syrian government reports.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/raf-reaper-drones-used-airstrike-killed-syrian-government-troops

    Like

    • BALDEAGLE 11 says

      We should not forget the fact of a Syrian TV newscast, which added several related facts to this US/NATO bombing of a unit of the 4th SAA brigade, which had been based on the site of mountain side which was bombed by the USA finest political airforces. All of whom were obviously equipped with precision targeted bombs/missiles. Moreover, the US and UK elements would have been able from their joint Cyrus base to downloaded satellite data for the joint mission planning officers responsible for the mission overall accuracy ?

      Like

  11. I am pretty convinced this bombing was no accident or mistake.
    However I remember as a student hitchhiking in the 1970s and getting a lift from a lorry driver. I cant remember how the subject came up, but the driver started talking about having served in the British contingent in the Korean War and that one day a US plane came flying over so they waved and then the plane swooped and attacked them. I asked the driver what happened next. ‘We shot the stupid bastard down’, came the reply.
    Maybe they are simply incompetent.

    Like

    • Reminds me, my father fought alongside Yanks in WW2. He said, “You never get in front of them, let them lead. They shoot at anything ahead of them. Cowboys.” However, I’d suggest that the latest strike was a deliberate beach of the ceasefire.

      Like

  12. michaelk says

    A good trick, or method, that aids understanding of the current situation, is to imagine how the media and our politicians would be reacting if dozens of US soldiers had been killed and wounded in an attack carried out by the Russian Airforce. Collective, mass hysteria and calls for the gloves to come off and a lurch towards open war with Russia in Syria would be just the beginning. Think of how the Sun would cover it, or Fox News.

    Like

    • BALDEAGLE 11 says

      I am MICKHAELK sure that your estimate of the USA/NATO response if these circumstances were reversed is correct.

      However, this situation as the author of the above article suggests it is difficult to place the actual political culprit(s) ?

      In my opinion, I view the current USA situation as a Nation which in particular, fears an breakdown of its monetary system as well as the realisation from a military point of view that its future superiority in any type of potential war is extremely limited in terms of a successful war?

      And given the foregoing this explains the reluctance of any serious politicians wanting to becoming a presidential candidate, and of a presidency of a Nation that is highly likely to shortly collapse from its imperial money-making dreams, and it also explains the reason why probably the: most un-suitable of presidential candidates are now being seriously considered for election to the office of ” the commander-in-chief ” of the USA ?

      Surely, most of the senior actors in the current US government mafia are aware of this critical dangerous situation, but many will still be smoking from the ” Hollywood-ian mixture of exceptionalism and the falsehood of the US military’s capability to survive a first-strike nuclear war un-seriously un-scathed ” ?

      Like

  13. Mick McNulty says

    I believe Brzezinski and Kissinger now talk of caution instead of blitzkrieg because they know if the US starts war against Russia and China there is no guarantee the US military will use nukes, and as the US is not good enough to win a conventional war, war criminals like themselves face being hunted down, arrested, tried and hanged.

    Like

    • Kathleen Lowrey says

      Yes, it makes sense of what has been a nonsensical approach in both Syria and Ukraine. “Set the region ablaze, and blame the Russians” as Brzezinski puts it.

      Like

  14. This incident reminds of the time John Kirby took irony to a new level. Last February, In a State Department press briefing, a straight-faced Kirby informed journalists that it wasn’t up to Americans to show evidence a Russian plane had violated Turkish airspace, but for the Russians to provide proof it hadn’t.

    Proof that Kirby did say that in the video attached. So it’s now up to the State Department to provide evidence he didn’t.

    Like

  15. Brezinsky valid points but lets be real. Afghanistan 1978 Taliban. He is the midwife along with the house of Saud of military takfirism. The west ,msm are in a total dystopia. This is where Brezinsky is showing some type off wisdom with his arguments. .The rest of the trumpeteers on that panel have the morality and intellect of a parrot . I a,m amazed that they even aired Brezinsky challenging their narrative and questioning their logic. Brezinsky in his day new too well that if the Russians and the chinese were to ever partner up it would be game set and match for the WASHINGTON CONSENSUS. . Recent G-20 they were put on notice . De dollarisation is happening as we speak the only difference is that the countries instigating it know that it is a slow progressive move in order not to totally ruin the Washington consensus and their corporatocry.
    TO MANY CHIEFS AND NOT ENOUGH INDIANS AT THE WHITHOUSE . EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES AND THE REST OF THE WORLD R STARTING TO C IT.

    Like

  16. michaelk says

    Here’s an article examining some rather scary statements made by influential Americans within the military complex about starting, what looks increasingly like WW3. That our media choose to ignore this, or filter it out of existance, whilst, at the same time they demonize the list of potential enemies, indicates the direction we are moving in.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/19/pers-s19.html

    Like

  17. damien says

    Great article, Kit! You got it right. The Pentagon and CIA are at war with Obama and Kerry over the ceasefire deal. They know that implementing the provisions of the deal requires al Nusra and allied jihadists to leave Aleppo or be bombed. If implemented, the deal would effectively hand the Syrian Armed Forces a win in Eastern Aleppo (they already have the rest of it). So they are going to sabotage the ceasefire, primarily by baseless claims that Russia is refusing humanitarian aid.

    The propaganda wheels are coming off. The Western public is waking up. There was no chance this latest attack on Syrian forces was a ‘mistake’ given the military setting and the intelligence available.

    There is also no legal basis for Australian fighters to be operating inside Syria (and Julie Bishop refuses to release her legal advice on our presence there precisely because it would say the opposite of what we are doing.)

    https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/16/australias-legal-justification-for-bombing-isis-in-syria-is-still-missing-in-action/
    https://newmatilda.com/2015/12/08/australias-illegal-war-in-syria-a-brief-update/

    Oh — and the Turkish government has been actively assisting ISIS for a long time. Or so says Ahmet Sait Yayla, Chief of the Counter-Terrorism and Operations Division of Turkish National Police between 2010 and 2012, and Chief of the Public Order and Crime Prevention Division until 2014.

    http://tinyurl.com/hutlxwa

    Like

  18. paulcarline says

    Apart from a single reference to ‘Anglo-Zionism’, no-one has mentioned a key piece of the puzzle: Israel’s duplicitous role in the war in Syria. Joaquin Flores on RT suggests this explanation for the US’ ‘mistake’ in bombing the SAA:

    “Israel bombed the SAA earlier in the week and as a response from the SAA, had several of their aircraft shot down. Of course the Obama administration is going to be pressured by its ‘only democratic ally in the region’ to take direct action against the SAA, diplomacy be damned. So of course the US had to do something.

    Things need to be set up so that the course of events and the dependent relationships have the effect of pushing Clinton and/or her successor into the White House.

    Samantha Power’s statements at the UN were deplorable, a real ‘low point’ in the history of US diplomacy. Of course the US has long been an imperialist power, only before it was able to couch this as the fight against communism. But this total lack of refinement, tact, comportment, sophistication, composure, and basic diplomacy on the part of the US’s Foreign Ministry and Press Secretary represents a new low in US history.

    It’s the Israelification of US diplomacy.

    They are all Tzipi Livni now, and narcissistically living in their own increasingly small, little world, cut off from reality and the real consequences which loom just over the horizon. But now, dawn is breaking.”

    I hope he’s right about the dawn. Maybe we will have to face the ancient fear that the sun will fail to rise.

    Like

  19. michaelk says

    What I find rather amusing, is when the Russian’s challenge the American story, this is taken as proof that the American version of events must be right. It’s similar to a witch-trial, where if the unfortnate victim is articulate and successfully refutes the allegations against her, this is perceived as proof that Satan is speaking through her.

    Like

  20. “America is the master of the long game. While diplomats are busy distracting and confusing everyone, the military and the CIA, at the highest echelons, are adapting to “facts” on the ground, so to speak, without ever wavering from their objective….”
    America has had every advantage that any potential hegemon could possibly desire. And yet its power has been declining, precisely because they are amateurs at a game which requires brains and analysis rather than brawn and bullying.
    The neo-cons are now in the position of a chess player who knows enough about the game to see that the only way to avoid checkmate in a few moves is to kick over the table and scatter the pieces on the board.
    The detail is far too great to enter into an explanation of this view but suffice it to say that the US’s last chance was to prevent Iran from joining with Russia and China, instead it forced a very reluctant Iran to turn to Russia which had, only a few years earlier refused to assist Iran in the face of US aggression.
    Once it had performed this trick Washington decided it needed another active opponent so it ‘pivoted’ against China, picking a silly fight over the South China Sea.
    Next stop?
    It has to be Europe where the logic of economics is screaming out for Eurasian integration from the North Sea to the Pacific.
    That will leave Amin’s ‘triad’ with only two members one of which, Japan, is in more trouble than any country has ever faced before: an environmental catastrophe in progress and a government fighting back with torrents of lies and denial of the obvious.
    All America’s intended victims have to do is sit tight and wait: the end is inevitable.

    Liked by 3 people

    • You misinterpret me, bevin. I’m not boasting on behalf of the American capitalist mafia, I’m merely underscoring the fact that they are ‘possessed’ in the manner better described by Orwell and as quoted by Frank below.

      Their collective insanity, their ‘demented megalomaniacal exceptionalism,’ which believes itself beyond good and evil, makes them utterly relentless and single minded in their pursuit of a hegemony embracing the entire planet. This insane drive to power is what blinds them to their real vulnerability in the face of the Russian and Chinese alliance, and what may get a lot of us killed sooner than latter, not to mention those already being led to the slaughter.

      And yes, I agree with you, the best that could happen would be a fracturing of the Triad, indeed, as Amin himself has admonished time and again over the years, that all nations incorporated in the Triad as subalterns of the Empire of Chaos should attempt to break away and find allegiances elsewhere, preferably among more secularly progressive economic blocks, such as Russia and China potentially represent. Indeed, Europe should and for the sake of its people and the world as a whole embrace a Eurasian integration . . .

      And yet, and yet, we may be on the cusp of a catastrophe that may preempt all futures. Europe may not escape the clutches of its master in time, not if the neocons have their way . . .

      Crazy times are already upon us and about to get even worse, at least that’s how I feel . . .

      Like

  21. I note that the latest episode of US calumny in Syria was spun by the Guardian (of course) as yet another piece of Russian duplicity. Here was a full picture of Harpy 3, Samantha Power, (the other harpies being Harpy 1 Clinton, Harpy 2 Nuland, and Harpy 4, Susan Rice) with headline denunciations of hypocrisy and cynicism being attributed to Russia emanating from this deranged individual. After 9 O’clock, however, the whole story disappeared from the front page. There appeared to be too many BTL comments which didn’t go down to well with the Graun’s moderators and editorship.

    Later in the day, I witnessed a video of this woman; it was frightening: a blathering, self-righteous fanatic in full cry. Obviously, there can be no accommodation with these people, like all ideological zealots they are completely divorced from reality. Nobody described this mindset better than George Orwell. In his essay ”Notes on Nationalism” Orwell uses the term more broadly than it is usually understood. ”By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming all human beings can be classified like insects and the whole blocs of millions or even tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’ … Secondly, I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation, or cause, or unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

    There, in a nutshell, you have the neo-con mindset. The United States is seen to be a good ‘exceptional’ nation with a manifest destiny, this much is taken as being axiomatic. Moreover this is a destiny (duty even) to reorder the world into something noble and exceptional, that is to say – an American world.

    Orwell goes on, ”Having chosen his faith he persuades himself that it is the strongest (and most righteous) and is able to stick to this belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since his is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.”

    As Orwell points out one of the most salient features of this social pathology is the complete and utter indifference to reality. Drawing on the post-modernist view that objective reality does not and cannot exist, the neo-cons go further and claim to create reality by an act of faith. When something comes to light which conflicts with the belief system it is simply ignored, or it is regarded as some cunning trick by a dangerous and eternally devious enemy. In the field of geo-politics this is self-evidently the case.

    Consistent with the nationalists thought processes – ”Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, forgery, assassination, imprisonment without trial, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side … Some nationalists are not far from clinical schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world.” (Notes on Nationalism – 1945).

    This obviously presents real and pressing dangers. Putin and Lavrov are old school realists and have assumed that they have been dealing with like-minded American ‘partners’. They have clearly been mistaken in this belief. It seems likely that the US war party (or lunatics) will keep on pushing Russia and China into a corner ultimately leaving them the choice of surrender or war. At this point Putin will have to call the Article 5 NATO bluff or surrender. Since Russia has never voluntarily surrendered to anybody it seem unlikely that this will happen. Whether the United States is willing to swap New York, Los Angeles and Chicago for Moscow, St.Petersburg and Ekaterinberg for the sake of Estonia, or Ukraine is a moot point.

    One can only hope that the American realists utlimately prevail and the doomsday scenario does not arrive. But it is going to be a close call.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Russia Vitaly Churkin response on Obama actions in Syria [there are commercials!!!! embedded in the clip, but you can skip them / perhaps I should have looked for a better clip, but there you go, eh] :

    Like

  23. michaelk says

    The American airforce is apparently claiming that they were targetting ISIS, who had launched an offensive, but by mistake hit Syrian government forces, whoops… sorry. But, as Churkin pointed out, are we suddenly supposed to believe that the Amercans were attempting to help the Syrian Army? Somehow, I doubt the Guardian will mention his remark. As an aside, have you noticed how many Americans are writing in the Guardian these days, since Viner took over? It’s like its been colonised.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. The American voter gave Obama the driver’s position. If he can’t control the car it is his fault and his alone. His Administration should have been cleansed of neocons, the Nulands and Powers of this World should have been shown the door eight years ago! He relinquished his own complete control of the steering wheel and now, as you say, the car is weaving all over the road and when the next neocon takes the wheel, the very real fear, is that the car will crash!

    Like

  25. I read somewhere about a year ago or so, that some in the Pentagon believe that sections of air force and other military obey Chaney and Rumsfeld. I also recall that when the previous cease fire happened some American plane bombed a water plant I think it was in Aleppo —– immediately the cease fire came into force — undoubtedly hoping to sabotage it —

    Like

  26. michaelk says

    There are always splits and factions present in ruling elites, the question is, how serious and meaningful are they? One can think of JFK who was less than enamoured with the JTCS and the CIA and their crazy plans for going to war with Russia.

    It all seems to be linked to how the main groups perceive Grand Imperial Strategy. The realists worry that the United States, like previous empires could over-reach militarily and both undermine its economy and be defeated on the ground. That there are limits to how many wars one can fight at once. They understand that the American people are tired of these wars and confused about what they are about. They are sick of ‘helping’ foreigners and want the money spent at home. The neo-cons, or crusaders, seem to actually believe their own rhetoric and myths about the nature of the role providence/God has created for the United States. The right and duty to rule the world, in short. The Crusaders are contemptuous of public opinion at home and don’t care how many countries they have to destroy overseas in order to achieve their ultimate goal, world domination, which paradoxically they imagine is good for the nations and peoples they subjugate. What sane person wouldn’t want to become an American slave with all the advantages that brings, freedom being just one of them!

    The Russians are in a difficult position. They don’t have any illusions about Washington. They are attempting to help the realists against the crusaders and, at the same time, not do anything that will give the Americasn an excuse to launch an attack on Russia. So the Russians are playing a defensive game and rolling with the punches, as far as possible. Trying to avoid war for as long as possible. But it’s difficult. Churkin chose his words carefully, but one could sense how angry and appalled he really was with Power’s militant language and insults. Listening to her it’s almost like war has already begun, and that may be correct. Now the Americasn are deliberately attacking the Syrian army. What’s next? Another accident where they bomb Russian soldiers? That would appear to be the next logical step. Then what happens? How should or could the Russians respond to that?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Excellent analysis. I think you’re spot on about Russia. No so sure about your take on the Neo-Cons … how do you try to assess the deep motivations/intentions of people it is hard not to see as straight out Satanists.

      Russia’s job in dealing with these people is truly impossible.
      If they decide this US treachery will continue until Assad is gone and the Russian government is destroyed, what really are their options other than choosing the best time to get your retaliation in first? They will surely embark on all kinds of the “asymettric” actions for which they are known. Their best bet (and everyone else’s) for a good outcome must be to somehow do a George Soros on the USA … provoke an internal revolution that sees these maniacs removed from power.

      Like

  27. “This isn’t like 2000 or 2008, when all the insiders were on the same page and the election was a formality.”
    The 2000 election a formality – is this irony?
    The 2000 Bush v Gore election was possibly the most contentious and divisive election in history – with
    consequences that are still relevant today (HAVA – the introduction of e-voting). So called ‘Buttefly Ballots’ confused Jewish voters into voting for an anti-semitic candidate; the antiquated punch-card system used in poor Democratic areas produced hundreds of thousands of discounted votes (so called pregnant or hanging chads.) These were just some of the issues. O, and Bushs’ brother Jeb was governor of the state of Florida, where the recount was being held.
    After intimidation failed to disrupt the recount (dubbed the Brooke Brothers riots) and with his lead cut below 200: Bush had to resort to his pappies appointees: the Republican judges of the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the recount – handing him the election. To this day the result is heavily disputed, and the need for a paper trail is still a relevant issue. So, hardly a formality
    (For citation I am using p493-4 of Stone & Kuznick: The Untold History of the United States – but its all online – google “hanging chads election.” )

    Like

    • You misunderstand me. I agree that the 2000 election was obviously rigged, or at least manipulated. By describing it as a “formality”, I meant that Bush was the preferred candidate of the entire Washington political establishment – so they fixed the election, knowing they would have no opposition to doing so. (See Al Gore’s reaction, and the SCOTUS decision).

      Like

      • It seems that we agree on everything except the use of the word ‘formality.’ Ideed, Bush was the candidate of choice, and the cards stacked for him, but they underestimated Gores appeal.
        At the risk of being pedantic – after the Supreme Court (Bush v Gore) ruled against him Gore conceded; but not without demanding a full recount in the State of Florida which the Governor (Jeb) denied. He maintained that he only conceded to “uphold the rule of law”. The next step was revolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoHdpkmt-p8
        The only reason I’m pressing my point is that its good to remember that the Bush administration was initially viewed with deep suspicion; a large section of the populace felt cheated; and the administration looked likely to be for a single term. His approving ratings didn’t pick up till, you guessed it, after 9/11. Then they were on a war footing and they could (and did) grant themselves the power to do anything they pleased without having to worry about minor distractions such as public approval.
        Since then things have proceeded much as you say, the car crash is waiting to happen; especially now the next ‘driver’ they’ve lined up is a 67year old woman in the early stages of Parkinsons

        Like

  28. America is the master of the long game. While diplomats are busy distracting and confusing everyone, the military and the CIA, at the highest echelons, are adapting to “facts” on the ground, so to speak, without ever wavering from their objective.

    When an opportunity presents itself, they measure it carefully and if the odds are that it will play out in their favor, they act. If not, they wait and see.

    Didn’t the establishment warn Americans that their engagement in the Middle East was going to be a “long war?” Bit by bit, nibble by nibble, they close in on their objective.

    And what would that objective be? As Samir Amin puts it, quite simply to destroy all of the nation states of the Middle East, eventually all the way to Tehran.

    In my opinion, once that is out of the way, assuming that both Russia and China haven’t jumped the gun, Russia is next and then China.

    The Triad, as Amin likes to call the alliance between America, the European Union and Japan, relentlessly drives to world domination, as far off as that final objective remains.

    I believe that Amin is right in the broad outlines of his analysis of what the Triad has in mind for the Middle East, and in my opinion either the Russians and Chinese will capitulate or a world war is in the offing. Yup, it’s absolute madness.

    Has anyone else got wind of this:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45476.htm

    Cracks begining to show in the “Pivot” to Asia?

    Like

  29. Is it just coincidence of the pipe bomb in NY? Building on the recent 9/11 anniversary jingoism, bigging up the fear of terror again and getting the public to support more war? Was this strike meant to provoke a reaction from Syrian government and give them licence to bomb Damascus?

    Like

    • Willem says

      For the pipe bomb, IS claims responsibility.

      While the US attack on the Syrian airfield helped IS to gain control in the area.

      So the US helps IS, and as a thank you note, IS bombs New York.

      But then, if IS is just another word for ‘US mercenary army’, it starts to make sense. The leadership of that army is just unsure how to control the US masses until election day.

      Maybe I have seen too many movies, and forgive me for this ‘out of the box’ (conspiracy) thinking, but both the airfield bombing and the NY pipe bomb feels like a wag the dog to me, which they ‘haven’t thought through’ yet.

      Distract the people from the fact that something is seriously wrong with Hillary: either in terms of health and/or in terms of legal issues. Don’t let them think about it. So start a war. Or something that looks like it.

      But then, maybe that film is crazier then reality. Nevertheless, people like Bernstein (of all people) seem crazy enough to start a war out of emotion (that video was kind of shocker). So the film, wag the dog, may not be that crazy.

      Like

      • Earthrise says

        I was watching this massacre play out in the media yesterday; Powers has just finished her psychotic rant. Then this pipe bomb goes off, just when the whole story was turning against the US. Seeing how good the Yanks are at media management, my first thought was the US deep state set that bomb off to fill up the news cycle. The early scare was this was part of coordinated attack, so fear started to cloud everyone’s mind to the real story of the act of war perpetrated against the Syrian people. They probably have a folder of ‘stunts’ ready to go to influence the election, they may have just pulled off something low key to drown out their crime in eastern Syria.

        Pity this possibility is more likely true than not.

        Like

  30. These crazy bastards will not back down, regardless of how many lives are ruined. This is like the narcissistic sociopath who has to win at all costs. We know they have form. The very people who are supposed to be keeping them to account are in their pocket pushing their propaganda. Sanity is a very lonely place right now.

    The fake liberal scum at the Guardian run the US state department sick spin for them again, no surprises. Care of Julian Cyborg-er.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. The article needs a major correction. Assad did not cross any red line. There has never been any definitive proof as to who released the chemicals on Ghouta, the red line referred to. The UN team had the mandate to determine if chemical weapons were used in the alleged attack on August 21, but not who was responsible for it. The team did determine that chemical weapons were used. A subsequent analysis of the data in an MIT study concludes that the Syrian government did not release the chemicals — and that the rebels had the capability to d so. It is not helpful to continue to repeat the US propaganda that Assad used these weapons in Ghouta.

    Liked by 4 people

    • definitely! The demonisation of Assad( whos popularity in fact is at the heart of Syrian morale to resist the terror) is a propaganda key to winning Western hearts and minds in favour of military action/ responsibilitry to protect/humanitarian relief ( e.g.White Helmets) in pursuit of the broader NATO strategic agenda – the Middle East is littered with “monsters/strongmen” who have got in the way of certain wider commercial.energy or military objectives; that the public keeps buying the false narratives even after Iraq is testament both to the continued power of and the subversion of the mainstream media as well as lack of critical thinking/understanding of US foreign /economic policy highly dependent on arms sales and military action which sells the myths,the Guardian itself having long since abandoned any pretence of objectivity.OFF-Guardian one hopes would be far more balanced and look at a range of sources.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I would also like to second Janet Contursi’s comment regarding the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta in August 2013, that there is no evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for their release.

      There is a blog Who Attacked Ghouta? set up by Sasa Wawa who invited other bloggers and commenters in an online collaboration to find, investigate and analyse all the available evidence to establish who was behind the attack.
      http://whoghouta.blogspot.com.au/

      The summary and conclusion can be read at this link as to who was most likely responsible.
      http://whoghouta.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/the-conclusion.html

      I appeal to Off-Guardian to read the summary and conclusion that Sasa Wawa and his/her collaborators reached and to rewrite the sentence: “It’s why Obama can be instructed to lay down a “red line”, but told to stand-down when Assad crosses that line” once they have done so.

      The Syrian government would have been out of its collective mind to have launched CW attacks at a time when UN weapons inspectors were actually visiting Damascus at the government’s invitation.

      Liked by 2 people

    • While I understand your point, and do agree that the government is almost certainly innocent of the chemical attacks, that is not the subject of the article.

      The point of the article is to explore the bipolar nature of American politics, by seeing the world from the American point of view – from the American POV Assad crossed that line. This is true regardless of his actual guilt or innocence.

      The sentence is not intended as a statement of the Syrian government’s guilt, and should not be taken as such.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Barbara McKenzie says

        I don’t see how you can type ” It’s why Obama can be instructed to lay down a “red line”, but told to stand-down when Assad crosses that line”, while claiming you are not saying that Assad has crossed that line. How do you know what instructions there are for when Assad crosses the line, if he hasn’t crossed it.

        The red line usually refers to Ghouta. NATO and their media quickly claimed it was the Syrian government that was responsible for the sarin attack, on no evidence, and then equally quickly abandoned that position when the UN accepted that it could not be government. Only die-hard regime-change supporters are still pretending that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack.

        Your strong implication that ‘Assad’ crossed this or any other red line reads like an attempt to undermine the Syrian government.

        Like

        • Nonsense. Read our articles on Syria, see what our editorial line is, and stop being pointlessly argumentative. The author has made his meaning clear. That’s an end of it.

          Like

  32. They have already morally isolated Russia, which has come to be the only world power attempting to develop their policies along ethical paths and insist on universal obedience to International Law.
    Russia alsp happens to be just about the only country outside Africa actively protecting its historical Christian heritage.
    (are Bernstein and Bryzynski de facto Satanists? That’s what they look like to some of us).

    Like

    • Earthrise says

      Good point my friend, I would call it a moral quarantine though. Russia and the Non-Aligned countries need to wall-off their societies from the evil, psychotic behavior of the Anglo-Zionist empire (the International Community). Look at Samantha Powers yesterday, their ability to believe their own lies exposes them as sociopaths and fake humans. Just as it was 70+ years ago, we are facing a Lord of the Rings moment, when the forces of Darkness threaten to wink out our civilization for good. We the good people of the West need to ensure that our governments lose WWIII; refuse to fight, refuse to labour in the war machine, protest and strike until this whole crumbling edifice collapses. The time is coming to choose.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “We the good people of the West need to ensure that our governments lose WWIII; refuse to fight, refuse to labour in the war machine, protest and strike until this whole crumbling edifice collapses. The time is coming to choose.”

        Aye!

        Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s