Category Archives: Warfare

Will Trump’s National Security Advisor depart?


Before he became National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn had been a controversial figure. Under Barack Obama he had served as the country’s top military spook, right up until he was canned for inflammatory Islamophobic prouncements.

But mere vulgar blatherings were no big deal to a man known for making a few himself. Indeed, they became valuable assets.

Back in November, after Trump’s win, CNN reported:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has been asked to serve as Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, has, on his verified Twitter account, interacted with far right and anti-Semitic figures, maligned the Muslim faith, and shared unfounded news stories.

A CNN KFile review of Flynn’s Twitter account finds that the retired lieutenant general, who once served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, tweeted routinely with members of the so-called alt-right movement, going so far as to endorse a book by one controversial figure who regularly makes offensive comments.

Flynn faced criticism in July when he retweeted an anti-Semitic message. Flynn said the retweet was an accident and deleted the message.

Has Flynn crossed over a line in the sand?

Maybe, but it’s more likely Flynn is headed to the altar of Trumpism as a sacrificial lamb.

The reason?

Allegations of secret per-inauguration talks with the Kremlin.

From the McClatchy Washington Bureau:

A top White House aide sidestepped repeated chances Sunday to publicly defend embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn following reports that he engaged in conversations with a Russian diplomat about U.S. sanctions before Trump’s inauguration.

The uncertainty comes as Trump is dealing with North Korea’s apparent first missile launch of the year and his presidency, along with visits this week from the leaders of Israel and Canada.

Trump has yet to comment on the allegations against Flynn, and a top aide dispatched to represent the administration on the Sunday news shows skirted questions on the topic, saying it was not his place to weigh in on the “sensitive matter.”

Pressed repeatedly, top policy adviser Stephen Miller said it wasn’t up to him to say whether the president retains confidence in Flynn.

“It’s not for me to tell you what’s in the president’s mind,” he said on NBC. “That’s a question for the president.”

But wait, there’s some context to consider

Compared to Richard Nixon’s track record, pre-election talks with Russia amount to chump change.

Consider Tricky Dick and H.R. Haldeman, his soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff.

Nixon and his 1968 campaign allies conducted secret negotiations with a nation the U.S. were currently fighting on the battlefield, actively pushing the North Vietnamese government to hold off on peace talks until after the election.

Nixon then campaigned as the peace candidate against then-Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey, promising he had a secret plan to end what was proving to be an ever costlier and bloodier morass, with most of the rest of the world aligned against the U.S. government’s relentless pursuit of an unwinnable and morally reprehensible desire to impose its will and control over an Asian nation.

The secret talks with Hanoi were rumored but unreported during Nixon’s subsequent impeachment hearings.

Haldeman ended up doing time in federal prison for conspiracy and obstruction of justice, stemming from the coverup of a secret funding-and-bugging operation to ensure a Nixon reelection win four years later the Hanoi talks.

Talk about your interfering with a presidential.

So in that context, Flynn’s alleged talks with the Kremlin on behalf of an already openly Putin-friendly candidate, while illegal and possibly criminal, didn’t cost additional U.S. citizens their lives, as did Nixon’s push to delay peace talks.

Trump’s pick for #2 at State has a very dirty past


Our new, Congressionally sanctioned Secretary of State last ran one of the world’s biggest oil companies, a key player in an industry notorious for turning to Uncle Sam whenever foreign governments threaten the bottom line.

Now comes word that his number two will very likely be an old hand at dirty tricks abroad.

From teleSUR English:

Elliott Abrams is believed to be U.S. President Donald Trump’s leading candidate for deputy secretary of state, Reuters reported Tuesday. While Abrams is known for having foreign policy roles with two other Republican administrations, he also has a checkered history in Latin America, linked to killings, disappearances and counterinsurgency across the region.

The 69-year-old last served under George W. Bush’s administration, but his work with Ronald Reagan’s administration is the most alarming. Abrams was a key figure in Reagan’s anti-communist intervention in Nicaragua, otherwise known as the Contra Wars.

During the 1980s, the U.S. funded right-wing paramilitary groups against the leftist Sandinista forces in the country. Contra forces commonly used terror tactics and committed a number of human rights abuses. It is estimated that at least 30,000 people died in the fighting, which also displaced many.

The Reagan administration was later found guilty of violating international law in their support of the Contras and mining Nicaragua’s harbors. Similar abuses with U.S. backing also occurred and were covered up in Guatemala and El Salvador. Abrams was known for downplaying the El Mozote massacre — where a U.S.-trained Salvadoran death squad killed over 1,000 civilians — as communist propaganda.

Around the same time, the U.S. supported brutal right-wing dictatorships in Argentina and Chile to squash the possibility of communist uprising during the Cold War with a counterinsurgency strategy referred to as Operation Condor. During the 17-year rule of Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet, thousands are thought to have been killed, disappeared and tortured.

Argentina’s, so-called Dirty War is estimated to have left up to 30,000 killed or disappeared after military dictator Jorge Videla came to power in a 1976 coup against left-wing President Isabel Peron and again received U.S. backing.

Racist Fake News: It’s an old American tradition


You could say that whipping up fear of people of color who held to different religious beliefs by portraying them as inferiors bent on rape an pillage is an American as apple pie.

Indeed, racist xenophobia was exploited by some of the very folks venerated today as our almost saintly Founding Fathers [no Mothers allowed].

Using racial fear to mobilize the masses for partisan purposes lies at the very root of the American political system.

From Binghamton University, State University of New York

Fake news and fear-based political dialogue are nothing new to politics. In fact, the Founding Fathers of the United States used these types of tactics to unite the 13 colonies during the American Revolution, according to a new book from Robert Parkinson, assistant professor of history at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

Fifteen years in the making, The Common Cause: Creating Race and Nation in the American Revolution (University of North Carolina Press) argues that political leaders, with an assist from newspaper printers, connected British aggression to the stereotypes and fears of Native Americans and blacks in an effort to unite the colonies. Following the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the patriots needed more than “the British are coming” to unify colonists up and down the coast and keep the war momentum going, said Parkinson. So they targeted black slaves, Indians and (for a short time) Hessian mercenaries as “proxies” of the British who were just as much a violent threat.

“The (patriots) reached into their toolbox and pulled out their most effective weapon,” said Parkinson. “They were in emergency mode. … The 13 colonies didn’t like each other and didn’t know anything about each other. If they didn’t stick together, they were in big trouble.”

Parkinson read every newspaper that is still available from the Revolutionary War era, and supplemented those 14 months of work by examining documents highlighting British tyranny from the time at the Boston Public Library and South Carolina Historical Association. He noticed that the front page of newspapers usually featured political essays stressing natural rights and liberties, while the back page offered local advertisements. The middle of the newspapers, however, featured the same dark stories about British tyranny.

“I would drive home and be astounded about how much news there was about African Americans and the potential threats of Native Americans, especially early in the war,” said Parkinson. The fear tactics against blacks and Indians came when thousands of the minorities were fighting with the colonists. Six to 10 percent of the Continental Army was comprised of African Americans. Nevertheless, “blacks were always seen in the press as helping the British,” Parkinson said. “They were portrayed constantly as aiding and abetting the enemy.”

Continue reading

Steve Bannon elevated to National Security Council


Be afraid.

Be very, very afraid.

An outspoken white supremacist and guru of the Alt-right has been handed one of the most powerful positions in the White House, in addition to all the others he already holds.

From the New York Times: [emphasis added]:

The whirlwind first week of Donald J. Trump’s presidency had all the bravura hallmarks of a Stephen K. Bannon production.

It started with the doom-hued inauguration homily to “American carnage” in United States cities co-written by Mr. Bannon, followed a few days later by his “shut up” message to the news media. The week culminated with a blizzard of executive orders, mostly hatched by Mr. Bannon’s team and the White House policy adviser, Stephen Miller, aimed at disorienting the “enemy,” fulfilling campaign promises and distracting attention from Mr. Trump’s less than flawless debut.

But the defining moment for Mr. Bannon came Saturday night in the form of an executive order giving the rumpled right-wing agitator a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council — while downgrading the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. It is a startling elevation of a political adviser, to a status alongside the secretaries of state and defense, and over the president’s top military and intelligence advisers.

In theory, the move put Mr. Bannon, a former Navy surface warfare officer, admiral’s aide, investment banker, Hollywood producer and Breitbart News firebrand, on the same level as his friend, Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser, a former Pentagon intelligence chief who was Mr. Trump’s top adviser on national security issues before a series of missteps reduced his influence.

But in terms of real influence, Mr. Bannon looms above almost everyone except the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in the Trumpian pecking order, according to interviews with two dozen Trump insiders and current and former national security officials. The move involving Mr. Bannon, as well as the boost in status to the White House homeland security adviser, Thomas P. Bossert, and Mr. Trump’s relationships with cabinet appointees like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, have essentially layered over Mr. Flynn.

ISIS hails Trump’s travel ban as a major victory


And, of course, they’re absolutely right.

From the Washington Post:

Jihadist groups on Sunday celebrated the Trump administration’s ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, saying the new policy validates their claim that the United States is at war with Islam.

Comments posted to pro-Islamic State social media accounts predicted that President Trump’s executive order would persuade American Muslims to side with the extremists. One posting hailed the U.S. president as “the best caller to Islam,” while others predicted that Trump would soon launch a new war in the Middle East.

“[Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi has the right to come out and inform Trump that banning Muslims from entering America is a ‘blessed ban,’” said one posting to a pro-Islamic State channel on Telegram, a social-media platform. The writer compared the executive order to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Islamic militant leaders at the time hailed as a “blessed invasion” that ignited anti-Western fervor across the Islamic world.

>snip<

Robert Richer, a 35-year CIA veteran and former chief of the agency’s Near East division, said the ban was a “strategic mistake” that could undermine future efforts to recruit spies and collect vital information about terrorists and their plans. How, he asked, can CIA officers persuade Iraqi and Syrian nationals to risk their lives to help the United States?

“This was a win for jihadists and other anti-U.S. forces,” said Richer, the deputy chief of the agency’s Operations Directorate during the George W. Bush administration. “It fuels the belief out there that Americans are anti-Islam. Otherwise, it accomplishes nothing, because the ones we are most concerned about can still get to the United States.”

But given that Trump has already declared he think America has a right to seize the Iraq’s oil and “maybe we’ll have another chance,” could there be a deeper game involved, one in which more warfare leads to outright invasion with the specific intent of seizing oilfields in the Mideast and, say Libya, which has the world’s finest reserves of light, sweet crude oil?

Given that he’s picked the CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies, as his Secretary of State we’d have to say that ours in a legitimate question and worthy of serious consideration.

Chart of the day: Americans split over torture


Donald Trump is intent on reversing restrictions on the use of torture, but Americans are split on the issue, and along lines you might expect.
From the Pew Research Center:

blog-torture

More from the report:

The national survey of 4,265 adults conducted just before the presidential election (Oct. 25-Nov. 8) on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel finds wide demographic and political differences in views of torture.

About seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (71%) say there are some circumstances where it is acceptable for the U.S. to use torture. By contrast, 67% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say there are no circumstances under which this is acceptable. Within both parties there are differences in views by ideology: Conservative Republicans are 18 percentage points more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to say there are circumstances where it is acceptable for the U.S. to use torture in anti-terrorism efforts (79% vs. 61%); among Democrats, liberals are 11 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to say there are no circumstances where the U.S. use of torture is acceptable (74% vs. 63%).

Men (53%) are somewhat more likely to say there are than that there are not (44%) circumstances under which it is acceptable for the U.S. to use torture. The balance of opinion among women is the reverse: 53% say there are no circumstances where it is acceptable for the U.S. to use torture, while 44% say there are some.

Brazil gives Trump a present: Secret military base


Brazil becomes the first nation to give President Littlefingers a major gift, and it’s a doozy.

The unelected neoliberal regime, installed by the legislature after the ouster of moderate leftist President Dilma Rousseff, has been following the standrad disaster capitalism model, selling off public resources and cutting back on programs for the nation’s poorest.

But their latest action is an imperialist’s wet dream, the handover of a site for a secret U.S, military, located in the heart of Brazil’s threatened Amazonia.

From teleSUR English:

The government of Brazilian President Michel Temer has invited the United States to use the Alcantara missile launching base in the Amazon region to launch satellites as part of bilateral negotiations in the so-called “Brazil and United States Defense Industry Dialogue.”

Defense Minister Raul Jungmann made the announcement following a meeting with U.S. officials at the headquarters of the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil in the national capital of Brasilia.

The final decision will be determined by Congress, as it remains one of the most sensitive issues in the bilateral relationship. The current law imposes safeguards on foreign technology on national soil. Back in 2003, then-President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva vetoed a similar proposal by the Congress that sought to allow the U.S. military to use the facility.

During that time, people poured into the streets to celebrate Lula’s decision to defend Brazilian sovereignty and the Amazon, which alone represents 50 percent of Brazil’s national territory.

The facility was created in 1982 under the last of the U.S.-backed military regimes led by dictator João Figueiredo that ruled the country following a 1964 coup. It is located three degrees south of the equator, which allows rockets to be more efficiently launched into space due to the rotation of the earth.

For its construction, an area of 52,000 hectares was expropriated, a process that displaced tens of thousands from native and Black communities that entirely depended on agriculture. The base was part of Washington’s plans to have a military presence in the Amazon.

If passed in Congress, the law will allow the U.S. to control the area and Brazilian authorities would not be able to monitor their activities. Activists have raised concerns that the activity at the base would not be limited to just launching rockets, but could also include other military actions.