Category Archives: Military Doctrine

Why Americans Blindly Support US Foreign Policy

Whenever the government or the media announces another “designated enemy” of the US, the vast majority of the US population just goes right along with the program and starts hating the new designated enemy. Polls usually show ~70-75% of the population starts opposing that nation happens to be, and around that same number starts calling that nation a threat to the US.

Granted peer pressure is involved in a lot of this. If you support the designated enemies of the US like I do, there are very serious repercussions including ostracism at the very least.

If there is a war going on, no matter how retarded, insane or evil the US is in fighting the war, you have to be a good German and “support the troops” which means support the stupid war effort. To not do so not only leads to social ostracism but also to serious anger and threats of violence.

Most people just want to go along. If the price of opposing US foreign policy means social ostracism or opposing a war means threats or getting punched, most people are not going to do it. Who wants to be a social reject or get hit? Only people like me who are socially ostracized by default and don’t care if they get ostracized even further are going to go out on a limb like that. When it comes to supporting US foreign policy, Americans are surely a nation of sheep. Ignorant sheep.

36 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Government, Military Doctrine, Regional, Sociology, USA, War

US Knew They Were Bombing Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Kunduz, Went ahead and Did It Anyway

Here.

Apparently US “analysts” (an analyst is generally CIA or some sort of intelligence personnel such as military intelligence) had been studying the Medicins Sans Frontiers Hospital in Kunduz for weeks and had become convinced that a major Taliban figure was using the hospital as a safe house to coordinate Taliban attacks all over Kunduz.

A major uproar took place when the US bombed this hospital in Kunduz, killing and wounding dozens of people. The attacks from a C-130 gunship continued for 30 minutes even as the organization frantically contacted the US military and told them that they were bombing a hospital. The hospital had also given the US the coordinates of the hospital several times before so it would not get accidentally bombed.

The US report said that Afghan military called in the attacks when they said they were taking gunfire from the hospital. The US plane apparently acted on the Afghan request without checking it out.

Now it turns out that US analysts believed that the hospital was being used as central control for the Taliban. In addition, either the US or the Afghans or both were angry that the hospital was treating wounded Taliban fighters.

It is looking dubious that the Afghans called in the attack themselves. Instead it looks like the US deliberately hit the hospital either because a Taliban leader was holed up there or to send a message to the Medicins Sans Frontiers organization to stop treating wounded Taliban fighters. If Medicins Sans Frontiers refused and continued to treat wounded Taliban, their hospitals might just get bombed.

US officials said that although a number of US officials knew where the hospital was, they were not sure if the fact that it was a hospital had been communicated to the C-130 crew when the crew attacked it, so the crew either could have been told that it was a hospital and went ahead and bombed it anyway, or the crew was deliberately left in the dark about the nature of the target.

I must say that when I heard this happened, I knew it was done deliberately, especially when the attacks did not stop for 30 minutes after the US was warned they were hitting a hospital. I figured that the US or Taliban ordered the strikes to punish Medicins Sans Frontiers for treating wounded Taliban, but now it looks like they may have been trying to take out a major Taliban figure instead.

Nothing surprised me about this attack. In the Total Spectrum Dominance Warfare Theory that the US now practices, hospitals that treat enemy wounded are considered to be military targets.

How far we have fallen.

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Health, Islam, Medicine, Military Doctrine, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, South Asia, US War in Afghanistan, USA, War

The Definition of the US Deep State

A lot of people are wondering what it is. This article by Philip Giraldi also comes in handy in describing what the Deep State is.

I would define the Deep State as:

  • The foreign policy establishment of the United States

That’s it.

The following are euphemisms for the Deep State:

  • The National Security State. Unfortunately, a better description would be to say that the Deep State grows out of the National Security State like a hatchling from its egg.
  • The military-industrial complex

Unfortunately, that encompasses an awful lot of America, including those listed below.

  • 100% of the US media, including all of the newspapers, newsmagazines, and TV and radio news stations.
  • Most of the Executive Branch of the US government, including the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and all of the rest of the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, the National Security Council, US embassy staff all over the world. The Treasury and Justice Departments would also have to be included.
  • The entire Legislative Branch of the US government. Almost all Congresspersons are full-fledged members of the Deep State, with few exceptions. If you don’t join the Deep State, you probably cannot get elected.
  • The judiciary, although their principal role is hard to pin down.
  • A wide variety of foreign policy think tanks or stink tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, the Rand Institute, etc.
  • The Democratic and Republican political parties. Neither party can go against the Deep State, and in general, both parties support the goals and actions of the Deep State to the hilt, with the only debate being that the Republicans do not feel that the Deep State is aggressive enough. The inner core of both political parties is made of powerful members of the Deep State.
  • The US military and associated institutions such as war colleges and the colleges and universities of the various branches of the US military. The US military is an essential cog of the Deep State. I should note here that the US military is profoundly politicized and ideological and always has been. It’s not supposed to be politicized at all, but if you think the Pentagon is apolitical, you are dead wrong. The Pentagon has an ideology and an agenda and it is drilled into the head of every soldier. As you move up into officer ranks, it only gets worse.
  • Various “private” mercenary and intelligence gathering companies. Often these are private in name only as they have deep ties to the state, often to the point of being CIA fronts. They work very closely with the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.
  • Defense contractors, i.e. large defense corporations such as Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc.
  • The various police agencies of the United States
  • Lobbyists
  • Large banks (banksters)
  • The financial industry (Big Finance)
  • Wall Street (one of the principal pillars of the Deep State)
  • The Federal Reserve Bank
  • Many US universities and many foreign policy experts at those universities. Certain universities such as Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, etc. are simply pillars of the Deep State and have been for decades if not longer. Georgetown should be called the University of the CIA.
  • Most of the large corporations of the US. The foreign policy of the US is designed for one thing and one thing only: to benefit large corporations and the US ruling class (the 1%). In other words, the corporations more or less run our foreign policy and our foreign policy is run for them and not for the ordinary people. The Carlyle Group and Halliburton are two of the worst examples of corporations that are simply cogs in the Deep State.
  • The ruling class of the US. The American rich, the 1%, have long been one of the main pillars of the Deep State. Bottom line is that if the ruling class opposed the doings of the Deep State, the Deep State would have to change a lot of its behavior. The Deep State does a lot of the nasty things it does because the rich like it, and those actions are undertaken to benefit the ruling class and not the ordinary people. In some cases, the ruling class even make foreign policy decisions, for instance, the plan to invade Iraq was agreed to at a meeting of very wealthy Americans and politicians including Warren Buffet, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Arnold Schwarzenegger. These rich people have a lot more power than you think.

The ideology of the Deep State includes:

  • The “Washington Consensus”
  • American exceptionalism
  • Maintenance of the status quo
  • US imperialism
  • Anti-Communism, anti-socialism, anti-Left
  • Anti-nationalism or opposition to nations pursuing independent policies

I believe that the Deep State concerns itself mostly with foreign policy and does not bother much with domestic issues. However, if you go against the Deep State like Kennedy did, you may just end up with a bullet in your head. Or your plane might crash, like what happened to Paul Wellstone. Or you might have anthrax mailed to your Congressional office as in the case of Senator Daschle. Like the Mafia, the Deep State has a way of terrorizing you and making you obey.

US domestic policy is also run by a cabal, but it is not nearly so all-encompassing. Bottom line is all of the folks listed above tend to also agree on the basic contours of US domestic policy. However, it cannot be said that all of the US Congress is part of some Domestic Deep State because there is a lot of disagreement on domestic policy in Congress. Even the Executive Branch and the political parties tend to differ quite a bit on domestic policy. US Domestic Policy is not so much a singular entity as the Deep State is for foreign policy.

The Domestic Deep State is simply the ruling class, the large corporations and the federal government and media that back their project to the hilt.

4 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Geopolitics, Government, Higher Education, Imperialism, Journalism, Law enforcement, Left, Marxism, Military Doctrine, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, USA

America Has a Special Mission to Bring Freedom and Democracy to the World

It is indeed true. America, that shining city on a hill, has a special mission to bring freedom and democracy to the whole world, at gunpoint if need be. America’s mission is to be the Humanitarian Bomber to the world in need, freeing people groaning under the weight of oppressive dictatorships so they can breathe the free air of freedom and democracy.

Before and after American intervention.

Before and after American intervention.

Before shows the horrible, evil, nightmarish world of oppressive dictatorship. This is before America got involved to bring light unto the world. Doesn’t that look horrible? Awful! Terrible! Those poor people need some liberation! On the right shows the the results after the great US (and NATO) intervention to remove the vicious dictators who slaughter their people and replace them with peace, freedom, democracy, human rights, gay rights parades, affirmative action quotas and radical feminism.

Look at how much better those countries look after US intervention! Isn’t America cool? God bless America! Land of the free! If you are suffering under a cruel dictator, just give America a call and we will send some humanitarian bombers to liberate you so you can enjoy peace, freedom, democracy, prosperity and human rights for all. Right now your country looks like those on the left. But don’t despair. You can look like the countries on the right in no time. Just give America a call today for a free Democratization Estimate.

3 Comments

Filed under Africa, Geopolitics, Iraq, Iraq War, Libya, Middle East, Military Doctrine, North Africa, Regional, Syria, USA, War, Yemen

All of America Is Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria

Let’s start with the Jew York Times.

Here.

They’ve been supporting Syrian Al Qaeda from Day One. And why wouldn’t the dual loyalists who run the Times do just that?

The Jews* are supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The entire US mass media is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Republican Party is very strongly supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Democratic Party is also supporting Syrian Al Qaeda, perhaps not as strongly as the Republicans, but still very much so.

The CIA is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda. 90% of the money and weapons that the CIA gives to the “Syrian rebels” ends up with Syrian Al Qaeda or groups who fight under their command.

The Pentagon is apparently supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

It looks like all of American society is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria, right? Are the American people really ok with this? Are they really down with this?

Israel is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

US allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE are all supporting Syrian Al Qaeda to the hilt with massive infusions of weapons and cash.

In case you were wondering, US support for Syrian Al Qaeda is a longstanding neocon project.

The neocons have recently become ascendant and have now taken over the Obama Administration where they were sidelined previously.

The entire Republican Party has always been Neocon Central, and most of the US media appears to be run by the neocons.

There are strong neocon factions in the Pentagon but whether they control the Pentagon right now is uncertain, as there are also anti-neocon groups there.

The US SOCOM or Special Operations Command, to their eternal credit, has taken a pretty strong anti-neocon line lately. That is because SOCOM is mostly about fighting Al Qaeda and related groups, and the neocons partner with Al Qaeda more than they fight them. In fact, at the moment some Al Qaeda factions could almost be said to be in part neocon projects themselves.

SOCOM is probably the only entity in the entire US state that is taking a strong uncompromising anti-Al Qaeda and anti-ISIS line. That is more pitiful than anything else.

The CIA has been taken over by neocons lately, but there are definitely some anti-neocon factions in the Agency, though they appear to be a minority.

The neocons are the enemies of the America, and to a large degree, the neocons are the enemies of the world.

*”The Jews” means Israel. To me, the US Jews are synonymous with Israel. Israel? US Jews? Same thing. Someone show me how these are different entities. To the extent that they support Israel, the US Jews are Israel. When the US Jews stop their sleazy, fanatical support for Israel, I will quit marrying the two.

5 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Islam, Israel, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Neoconservatism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The Jewish Question, Turkey, US Politics, USA

Russia Intervenes in Syria to Stop ISIS and Al Qaeda, America Enraged

Here.

It’s hard to imagine a more depraved, wicked and vile foreign policy than US foreign policy in Syria. The bottom line is that the US, along with Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Canada, is supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government.

Our policy in Syria is also completely insane. We are bombing ISIS, although the bombing does not hurt them very much. But at the same time, the US and its allies have waged all out war on the two main groups that have fought the hardest against Al Qaeda and ISIS – the Kurdish militias and the Syrian state. The greatest successes against ISIS have been by the Syrian government and the Kurdish militias.

So we are:

Bombing ISIS ineffectually.

and

Waging all out war on ISIS’ biggest adversaries.

Does that bullshit even make sense?

The US spends $1 billion/year supplying advanced weaponry to what amounts to Al Qaeda.

Here is what happens.

  1. US gives weapons to fake “moderate” rebels who don’t even exist.
  2. Vast majority of weapons given to fake moderate rebels end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.
  3. US looks the other way.
  4. Return to Step 1 above.

The US is fully aware that most our weapons are going to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care because US policy in Syria is that we will support anybody, and I mean anybody, to overthrow the Syrian government. The US also gives a lot of weaponry to Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabian representatives in Turkey and to Jordan inside Jordan. Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then give the weapons directly to Al Qaeda with no intermediaries involved.

We know full well that after we give these countries’ reps our weapons, they immediately give them to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care for the above mentioned reason.

Bottom line is the US is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and we have been from Day One. It’s hard to think of a scummy and filthy foreign policy that supporting Al Qaeda, but that’s exactly what we are doing. It is absolutely disgusting.

Turkey, on the other hand, appears to be directly supplying and harboring ISIS. Every day, scores of trucks containing ISIS forces, supplies and weapons head across the Turkish border heading straight for ISIS territory. The Turks simply wave them on through. Furthermore, Turkey serves as a huge rear base for ISIS where they have training camps, de facto bases, rest and recreation areas, medical facilities and supply depots for supplies and weapons. Turkey has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to shut down ISIS’ rear base areas inside Turkey. Bottom line is Turkey is ISIS’ biggest supporter. The US knows this and does nothing whatsoever about it.

So the US is:

Ineffectually bombing ISIS

while

Waging all out war on ISIS’ worst opponents

and

Leaving ISIS vast rear base area intact.

So in a roundabout way, we are actually backing ISIS in Syria by allowing our ally to set aside a huge rearguard area for ISIS and winking and looking the other way while our ally allows forces, supplies and weaponry to resupply ISIS across the Turkish border.

I am not sure if we really want ISIS to conquer Syria. I would say we would not want that. Of course, the Israelis, the worst humans on Earth, would be ecstatic if ISIS took power in Syria, but who cares what the Jews think about anything?

Instead, I think we would like to weaken ISIS enough to keep them from conquering Syria, while at the same time not allowing them to be completely defeated so they can remain strong enough to serve as a major opponent to the Syrian regime. Putin says the US does not want to see ISIS defeated in Syria. As usual, Putin is 100% correct.

Now Russia is intervening, quite possibly with a large military force, because it figures there is no way they are going to sit back and let Syria fall to Al Qaeda and ISIS. So Russia is intervening in Syria to try to deliver a massive blow to Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. The US is absolutely enraged that anyone is trying to defeat our jihadi pals who we are arming in a roundabout way.

How dare anyone try to defeat Al Qaeda and ISIS! The American government will not stand for such an outrage!

The US says Russian involvement will fuel the conflict and make peace difficult. But the main fueling of the conflict is coming from the US and our slimy allies Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Turkey.

There is a vast problem with a peace settlement. The US and all the other disgusting countries above say that the armed Syrian rebels have to be guaranteed a position in the Syrian government. But that cannot be allowed to happen because the Syrian rebels are simply Al Qaeda and ISIS. All of the so-called moderate groups are fighting as part of a military unit that is led by Al Qaeda. So all of the moderate rebels are more or less Al Qaeda right now. The plan of the US and its loathsome allies above is apparently to force Assad to share power with what amounts to Al Qaeda. You heard that right. We want Al Qaeda to run Syria. How insane is that?

Al Qaeda and ISIS or anyone associated with them cannot be allowed to share power with Assad in Syria. Assad does have a plan to allow the sane opposition (which is not armed) to share power in the government along with Parliamentary elections in which the sane election is allowed to participate. The US and its partners in crime have nixed this plan because it doesn’t allow Al Qaeda to join the Syrian government.

Sometimes I wonder if reality is even real because actual existing reality seems so crazy that it could only be fiction. It seems too nuts to be real.

10 Comments

Filed under Canada, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, USA, War

US, NATO Causing Chaos and Unrest in Moldova

US and NATO doing the only thing they can ever do, stir up trouble, chaos, war and hatred while promoting fascism, dicatorship, and radical nationalism, This time apparently they are supporting Moldovan Nazis or Romanian Nazis as their shock troops just like NATO used Ukrainian Nazis in the Ukraine.

Moldova has been run by oligarchs ever since the US/NATO got involved and they have stolen every nickel in the country while not doing one damn thing to help the people. America just can’t get over its love for oligarchs, right? All over the world, US foreign policy forever now has been:

Support the rich, the oligarchs and the 1%

Attack the people, all the way up to committing genocide against the ordinary working people.

It’s always pro-rich anti-people, pro-rich anti-people, pro-rich anti-people everywhere the US goes on Earth. If you’re not rich, why would you support US foreign policy which supports your class enemies? I hope you know that the US military is a major of this “support the rich, attack the people” project. Why would anyone who is not rich go join the US military to fight Wars for the Rich? Rich men get workers to fight their thieving wars for them? Why do workers put on uniforms to go fight for their class enemies? I don’t get it.

If you don’t want to fight for the rich, don’t join the US military. That’s all it’s been doing for a long time now.

This Moldova situation is starting to look seriously like Ukraine 2.0. Where is Nazi-loving Jew Victoria Nuland? Shouldn’t she be showing up about now? Where is her Nazi-loving Jew husband, neocon Robert Kagan. The Jews’ performance in US foreign policy has been despicable lately. Here is Jews’ foreign policy in a nutshell:

Support Al Qaeda (in Syria, Turkey and Yemen)

Support ISIS (in Turkey, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon)

Oppose ISIS and Al Qaeda (in Egypt)

Let’s pass around a few more memes, which are 100% factual:

Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda. Jews support Al Qaeda.

Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS. Jews support ISIS.

Pass it around!

14 Comments

Filed under Economics, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Islam, Labor, Military Doctrine, Nazism, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, War

America, a Colony of Israel

Via Debka, a website run by the Mossad:

Obama authorizes air power to defend US-backed Syrian rebels
DEBKAfile August 3, 2015, 8:56 AM (IDT)

President Barack Obama has authorized using air power to defend a US-backed fighting force in Syria if it is attacked by Syrian government forces or other groups. DEBKAfile: This is the first time the US has intervened directly in the four-year old Syrian civil war. The action was authorized by the president after a group of rebels trained by the CIA in Jordan was attacked last week by the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front rebels who took some of them hostage.

I can’t even begin to tell you how insane this is. In a nutshell, America has just declared war in Syria. That statement issued right there, that the US will attack any Syrian government forces that attack our precious “moderate” rebels, is an out and declaration of war on Syria. Of course the media that has absolutely no Jews in it whatsoever will tell us all about this, right? Of course not. The media will not report on this in any way whatsoever.

We should not overplay the role of US Jews in all of this mess. If there is one beef that is perfectly valid against US Jews, it is that they have subverted our sovereignty and turned this country into a colony of Israel. And yes, that is a good reason do dislike Jewish people.

29 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Geopolitics, Israel, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Obama, Politics, Regional, Syria, Terrorism, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War

Glenn Greenwald on Why There Is No Freedom of the Press in the West

Apparently in “free” Australia, this is what happens to dissident journalists:

Any society in which it’s a firing offense for journalists to criticize the military is a sickly and undemocratic one.

They get fired. Then they lie about why they were fired, which the West always does about most anything. We need to acknowledge the incredible amount of lying that goes on in the West all the time, particularly in government and media. It’s not a free country when everybody’s lying all the time. There’s nothing free about that except freedom to lie.

The excuses offered by SBS for McIntyre’s firing are so insulting as to be laughable. Minister Turnball denies that he made the decision even as he admits that, beyond his public denunciation, he “drew [McIntyre’s comments] to the attention of SBS’ managing director Michael Ebeid.”

The Minister also issued a statement endorsing McIntyre’s firing, saying that “in his capacity as a reporter employed by SBS he has to comply with and face the consequences of ignoring the SBS social media protocol.” For its part, SBS laughably claims McIntyre wasn’t fired for his views, but, rather, because his “actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy”

The lying, the lying. Obviously Turnbull is the one who got this reporter fired, but as always in the West, he denies doing what he obviously did.

Then they lied about why he was fired, which also happens all the time in the West.

Notably, McIntyre’s firing had nothing to do with any claimed factual inaccuracies of anything he said. As The Washington Post’s Adam Taylor noted, historians and even a former prime minister have long questioned the appropriateness of this holiday given the realities of Anzac’s conduct and the war itself.

As Australian history professor Philip Dwyer documented, McIntyre’s factual assertions are simply true. Whatever else one might say, the issues raised by McIntyre are the subject of entirely legitimate political debate, and they should be. Making it a firing offense for a journalist to weigh in on one side of that debate but not the other is tyrannical.

Exactly. In the West, it’s illegal to tell the truth. Journalists who tell the truth will be fired and they all know it, so they all figure out what lies they are supposed to tell and then they stick to their phony scripts. Government or corporate workers who tell the truth are often fired. As I said, in the West, telling the truth is a fireable offense.

Part of this is driven by the dangers of state-funded media, which typically neuters itself at the altar of orthodoxy. In the U.S. the “liberal” NPR is, not coincidentally, the most extreme media outlet for prohibiting any expressions of views that deviate from convention, even firing two journalists for the crime of appearing at an Occupy Wall Street event.

Identically, NPR refused (and still refuses) to use the word “torture” for Bush interrogation programs because the U.S. government denied that it was; its ombudsman justified this choice by arguing that “the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed.” We can’t have a media outlet doing anything that might have “political and social implications” for high government officials!

In other words, they lied. The government lied and said they were not torturing anyone even when they were, the corrupt American Psychological Association, the organization of all American psychologists, went along with the torture and wrote up lengthy lying reports on why the torture wasn’t torture, in other words, why something was not what it was.

And the corrupt media, especially NPR, went along with it, all because they get government funding. A public radio station that is so rightwing that it won’t call torture torture is not liberal in any true meaning of the word. NPR is just another conservative media outlet, albeit one of the least conservative in the country. That the NPR is regarded as only prominent Left dissident or opposition media in the US is stunning.

But his reasoning shows how neutered state-funded media inevitably becomes. Here’s one of the biggest stories in journalism of the last decade, one that sparked a worldwide debate about a huge range of issues, spawned movements for legislative reform, ruptured diplomatic relationships, changed global Internet behavior, and won almost every major journalism award in the West.

And the director of news and current affairs of BBC says they likely would not have reported the story, one that — in addition to all those other achievements — happened to have enraged the British government to which the BBC must maintain fealty.

Exactly. All state media must suck to the state or lose its funding and get its staff fired. So state media is generally made up of state propaganda outlets in most countries, a major dilemma.

A different aspect of what the Australia firing shows is the scam of establishment journalists in defining “objectivity” to mean: “affirming societal orthodoxies.” Journalists are guilty of “opinionating” and “activism” only when they challenge and deviate from popular opinion, not when they embrace and echo it (that’s called “objectivity”).

Yep, in the West, journalists are fired for defying popular opinion. The reason given is that when you become a dissident journalist in the West, you are no longer objective! Incredible. And in the West, the term “objectivity” is defined as being an echo chamber for public opinion and rich and the powerful. As long as you are sucking up to these entities, you are “objective.” Unbelievable.

That’s because, as practiced, “journalistic objectivity” is compelled obeisance to the pieties of the powerful dressed up as something noble.

Then Greenwald gets down the real meat of his argument: the West’s omnipresent exceptionalism and high horse riding.

But what is at the heart of McIntyre’s firing is the real religion of the supposedly “secular West”: mandated worship not just of its military but of its wars. The central dogma of this religion is tribal superiority: Our Side is more civilized, more peaceful, superior to Their Side.

I am so glad he said this because I have been thinking this for so long now but I have never been able to put it into words. Finally, after 57 years, someone does it for me. This is so true. To be an American means you must worship all of America’s wars. Most importantly, you must support an entity called “the troops.” There is nothing special about American soldiers. They are trained and hired killers, just like all military men. An army is only as good as the government commanding it. Lousy governments have lousy armies because the governments are always compelling the military to engage in lousy, sleazy conflicts. A good government has a good army. It will only enter into conflicts when it feels it is on the side of justice.

The American notion is that there is something inherently noble about American servicemen. This is nonsense. A US soldier is only as decent as his commander in chief. Soldiers are bad soldiers when they are fighting on the wrong side of a conflict or for evil objectives. Soldiers are good soldiers when they are ordered to relatively obey the rules of war and to engage in conflicts on the side of justice. So the US serviceman is simply an automaton who follows whatever orders he is given. When he is fighting for evil, which is a lot of the time, he’s a bad guy. When he’s fighting for good, he’s a good guy. He has no inherent positive, decent or moral essence.

When US soldiers fight for the bad guys, one should certainly not “support the troops.” Probably the best thing to do in that case would be to campaign to bring the troops home. Yet in America you always have to “support the troops.” That means that whatever conflict the military is involved in any on Earth, all Americans have to support it! Why? In order to “support the troops,” that’s why. So you see that America has elements of a totalitarian country.

This is the religion — of militarism and tribalism — that is the one thriving and pervasive in the West. The vast, vast majority of political discourse about foreign policy — especially from U.S. and British media commentators — consists of little more than various declarations of tribal superiority: we are better and our violence is thus justified.

Exactly. Nail, meet hammer. Once again, I have been thinking this most of my life, but no one has ever articulated it in quite those words.

6 Comments

Filed under Australia, Britain, Conservatism, Europe, Government, History, Journalism, Liberalism, Military Doctrine, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA, War, World War 1

“The Trouble With Henry Cabot Lodge,” by Nominay

This article is by Nominay, a veteran commentator at Beyond Highbrow. He has his own site where he posts mainly about the JFK assassination but also on current events and in defense of liberalism generally. His blog is called The Endangered Left. This piece originally appeared there.

Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved. As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.

What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government.

He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup however, which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.

As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best action to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire.

These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.

Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders was the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle to his vision of some kind of victory.

But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. At the end of 1962, just when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out his ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro.

This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, along with hair-brained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.

Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served as Ambassador to the United Nations in Eisenhower’s cabinet for 7 years.

Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:

…Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action.

When the Government was overthrown, the United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”

Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.

Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working in concert with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.

Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.

In Stone’s best selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, he recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:

In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.

His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

In his renowned book JFK and the Unspeakable, author James Douglass adds content confirming what Kennedy’s intentions were on this issue from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:

JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.

Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions:

“The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”

According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”

President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.

It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.

Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:

“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63…shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost…yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone…

Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…the others stayed in the military quarters.” *

Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book Not In Your Lifetime, he quotes former UN Ambassador Atwood, as saying:

“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba]…they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”

What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing…and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge,   A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge, A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

8 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Britain, Caribbean, Cold War, Cuba, Democrats, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Government, History, Latin America, Military Doctrine, Modern, Politics, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, SE Asian, The Americas, US, US Politics, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War