Most readers have seen the stories about how the US is unprepared for the war that Israel and the Neocons are trying to get us into. Consider the excuses that military is making for their failure to break the Houthi blockade of Suez. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that blockade busting was ever going to be a real possibility—the world just isn’t the way it was back in the 90s. But also recall that the US was making proxy war on Yemen via KSA and the Emirates (and Sudanese mercenaries) for ten years, until just a few years ago. And now they’re telling us this?
The troops being sent to Gaza are going to be sitting ducks for anyone who wants to escalate things. If I were HAMAS, would attack them as soon as possible, and I might do it if I were the Israelis, too. This decision by Biden is just horrible.
Totally agree. Sounds like another inane “tripwire” move. Instead, we should be pulling troops out (Iraq, Syria). But no, Zhou and company only seem to know how to double down on stupid. Remember Tower 123?
Victor Orban is a smart guy.... and more importantly he is a leader who actually cares about his people and believes that elected officials should represent their peoples' interests. U.S. politicians: note and observe.
As regards the Pentagon and the CIA: I happened to view the Duran's video today with Tony Shaffer. If you don't know him, Google. He is a Reaganite with a background pretty high up in the military and also has a great deal of counter intelligence experience with a specialty in Russia. He is vehemently anti-Neocon; he was aligned with Mike Flynn in attempting to influence the first Trump administration to keep out folks like Bolton. He is still working to keep out such people from a second Trump admin.
Anyway, he says that the current "Intelligence" leadership (along the lines of Clapper and Brennan) are entirely politicized. They don't feed real intelligence assessments to the White House, only those items that support the preferred political narrative. Same with Austin and the DoD and the Generals within - all are political animals and all their actions are directed out of their personal ambition politically. Shaffer says that a new Trump admin will need to clear out the highest three levels of both the IC and the DoD. This is what has shocked European elites. They are now realizing they put their faith in people who are totally out of touch with reality and still refuse to recognize the truth of what is going on in Ukraine and Israel. A real cluster****.
Shaffer is working with Heritage Foundation to influence MAGA foreign policy appointments in a second Trump admin. They can use our prayers, IMO.
U.S. has thrown the kitchen sink at Russia, and Russia’s economy is growing, while Europe is in recession.
Powell’s higher interest rates are drawing down the Euro dollar.
And the Petro dollar is losing usage,
U.S. and Europe have destroyed their credibility as financial safe havens.
Summary - U.S. has over played the financial war gambit and is paying for it with continued dedollarization trend that is not stopping. The future Trend is very negative for the West.
Domain #2: Economic Warfare
I see no difference from #1.
The exception is how China has bought the U.S. elites to de industrialize the U.S.
Plus the U.S. and the West are destroying their economies with climate change / green agendas / Wef insanity.
Domain #3: Cyber Warfare
U.S. is incredibly susceptible in this area. U.S. government and private industry have been hacked A-Z by China. Great firewall of China makes it harder to hack into China by the U.S.
Domain #4: Information Warfare
In the West, the West still has an advantage due to all the censorship/ dis information/ mal information efforts by the Western Internet giants with government backing.
Domain #5: Deniable Sabotage
The U.S. seems to deliberately turn a blind eye to Chinese funding. On big stuff it’s hard to surpass Nordstream. British seem to do lots of projecting on Russia.
Domain #6: Biological Warfare
- there seems to be no difference between biological defense and offense. On the U.S. side we seem to have a Dr. Strangelove mentality, of hubris and incompetence.
Domain #7: Proxy Warfare
Ukraine has resulted in 500,000 Ukrainian’s killed and wounded, so that’s hard to surpass. Only cost what, $400 Billion? Plus the devastation of Syria. The Iranian use of proxies is driving the U.S. into fits, at a much lower cost.
For overall effect the West, they basically money bombed their proxies. With the decline of the Eurodollar and Petrodollar this may no longer be possible in the future. Plus all U.S. proxies have been burned.
"The exception is how China has bought the U.S. elites to de industrialize the U.S."
It does sorta look that way, but I wonder if it was not the U.S. elites who, in fact, sold out to China for what appears now to have been short term gain with horrifying long term losses. Nobody forced the U.S. to de-industrialize. That was our decision. To close the factories in Akron and Youngstown and Toledo and Deerborn and produce in China and elsewhere.
What, were the Chinese going to say, "No. We won't take your factory...It will be bad for Ohio?"
I suppose one can argue that deindustrialization is inevitable when the apparent *internal* costs of production in one place become so much lower than in another place.
But what U.S. business and government leadership seems to have failed to take into account is the *external* costs of deindustrialization. Sure, a flat screen tv could be made far more cheaply in China than in the U.S., and sold to the American consumer at a much lower price than an American made tv. But what of the impact on the American communities which depended on manufacturing for their existence?
John Russo and Sherry Lee Linkon at Youngstown State University have addressed the costs of deindustrialization in their article "The Social Costs Of Deindustrialization".
"The social costs of deindustrialization are significant, longlasting and wideranging, if for no other reason than sheer numbers. The deindustrialization of the 1970s and 80s was "cataclysmic"; more than 32 million jobs were lost...More recently, ... between 1995 and 2004, almost 700,000 firms closed each year, affecting 6.1 million workers, and an additional 1.7 million firms contracted annually, affecting another 11.8 million workers.
"But job loss does not affect individuals only, although it touches many who, having dedicated their lives and sometimes their health to employers, now feel betrayed and economically expendable. As a laidoff ... worker in Louisville, Ky., explained, "I've always been a hard worker....You go in there and give a guy a day's work for a day's pay." But, he lamented, the company didn't see it that way: "I gave them 110 percent. They paid me for 110 percent but they did everybody out there wrong."...Another laidoff worker suggested that U.S. companies were "letting the people of America down," and this would "eventually come back to them."
"Deindustrialization undermines the social fabric of communities, states and the nation. The social costs of deindustrialization include the loss of jobs, homes and health care; reductions in the tax base, which in turn lead to cuts in necessary public services like police and fire protection; increases in crime both immediately and longterm; decaying local landscapes; increases in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence and depression; declines in nonprofits and cultural resources; and loss of faith in institutions such as government, business, unions, churches and traditional political organizations.
"Even when workers find new jobs or when communities succeed in bringing in new employers, these new jobs often pay less, offer fewer benefits, are less likely to provide union protections and, in many cases, are temporary, contingent or parttime. Finally, widespread job loss, especially in communities that rely on just one or two industries, undermines the community's identity and sense of competence. Deindustrialized communities too often become sites of persistent struggle, creating a cycle of failure from which it is difficult to escape."
I think Donald Trump appreciates this and I think that in many respects this is what MAGA is all about. Joe Biden touts his 'Working Class Joe' persona, but, in fact, it is the policies of his party and his backers which have accommodated deindustrialization without accounting for the enormous toll it has taken on our country. It has come with horrific costs which, I would submit, the Democrats still do not acknowledge.
It looks to me like the day of reckoning is still coming.
Gut feelings on China, and how U.S. elites have been a combination of useful idiots, greed, and collaborators. I am sure there is a lot more I am not aware of yet.
1. U.S. allowed China to take advantage of U.S. companies with technology transfer deals. You want business, then give your technology.
2. It was only under Trump there was any pushback to Chinas economic policy.
3. Lots of U.S. technology companies were allowed to be find to China.
4. China was allowed to under price rare earths, that drive U.S. producers out of business.
5. Diane Feinstein became very rich by invite only deals. This is just the tip of the ice berg. I wonder what legislation helped China? Clinton allowed Loral to solve China’s rocket issues.
6. Allowing U.S. drugs to be produced in China with basically no supervision. And predatory pricing was also used to destroy U.S. production.
"Gut feelings on China, and how U.S. elites have been a combination of useful idiots, greed, and collaborators. I am sure there is a lot more I am not aware of yet."
Of course -- the subject is deeply complex.
But at the end of the day, "U.S. elites" absolutely knew what they were doing. In order to take the profits available by moving U.S. manufacturing to China and elsewhere, U.S. elites sold out to China (trade secrets, protectionism, currency manipulation, etc., etc.) and they sold out the American worker ("Youngstown", fentanyl, open borders, family disintegration, destruction of the American City, etc., etc.)
So who were the architects of the Great Sell Out?
Well, you can start with Nixon and Kissinger and then move on to The Committee to Save the World (Hah!) That was Time magazine's 1999 honorific for Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, to whom Bill Clinton delegated American economic policy. Link: https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054093,00.html
The boom was on as we rationalized America's transformation from an industrial economy to a service economy and 'financialization' replaced manufacturing as America's primary product. Wall Street (Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and their 'clients') got very very rich and the American worker and all of his and her dependents were crushed. The 'wealth transfer' was enormous. You can see the result today.
Once initiated, the result was inevitable and, yes, they absolutely knew what they were doing.
Postscript: Of course they knew what they were doing. As J. Wellington Wimpy (of Popeye cartoon fame) said long ago, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Nothing new.
I would posit that this was brought about by a combination of cynicism and gullibility.
Cynicism of the ruling class to financialize the economy by selling our industry and the futures of Americans. I believe that the people behind this knew what they were doing and did it anyway out of self interest--to enrich themselves and let the rest take care of themselves.
Gullibility, because this insane program was cynically sold to Americans using the snake oil of Libertarianism--free trade and open borders and information jobs will make us all rich.
Yes. The seductive, siren song of libertarianism turns out to be utterly false. Like Marxism, libertarianism ultimately benefits not those who practice it, but those who control those who practice it.
It turns out that the liberal socialist left is the party of the rich rentier class, out to keep the workers down by importing cheap labor for lawn and house care while exporting jobs that might otherwise create an uppity middle class. And white women are indoctrinated in this in college.
1st) Where's India on the list? Their going to support whoever provides them with natural resources.
2nd) Can China survive economic sanctions (#3) if they invade Taiwan? Economically, China's struggling right now. Will their people push back and potentially cause regime change?
3rd) I think most of the 1st 6 (maybe not all) will occur before proxy war (#7).
4th) US defense strategy has stagnated for 20 years. Russia and even China have evolved over time. The US hegemony has prevented us from thinking outside of the box and re-imaging future conflicts. Further impacted now with DEI center stage.
5th) the list of US/EU allies shown above is as suggested loose. I doubt this can be counted on especially with conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.
6th) I don't see the CIA converting camel jockeys into intelligence assets anytime soon.
Thanks for the stimulation Mark and I'm sure Ray's (SoCal) list will be awesome.
"5th) the list of US/EU allies shown above is as suggested loose. I doubt this can be counted on especially with conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East."
Yes. BRICS is expanding (BRICS+). Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE are now members. Saudi Arabia has applied and been admitted. Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, and Palestine, among others, have applied for membership.
BRICS+ is closely associated with OPEC (and OPEC+) which includes the oil-producing BRICS+ members, plus Iraq and Kuwait.
Closely associated through BRICS members Russia, China and India is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which comprises China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as four Observer States interested in full membership (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia) and nine Dialogue Partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia).
How many of these BRICS, OPEC and SCO members and associates is the US counting on to back it in the Middle East?
#4 is huge. The fact that our defense industry is profit based rather than purpose based has made all the difference. No none in government has examined how our defense spending has supported strategic goals for the last 30+ years. It has been all about making money for the defense contractors - nothing else. For that matter, no one has even defined any strategic goals since the end of the USSR.
Yes, iirc in a recent Duran with Ambassador Chas Freeman, he states precisely that on the fall of the Soviet Union, the US failed to open its mind and rethink the world, bringing Russia into the fold and dropping the Cold War mindset. Such a wasted opportunity (talk about letting a crisis go to waste!) and which led Nato to transform itself from containment to agression….with carnage and devastation in Ukraine and a global majority looking for ways to contain us (US)!
The troops being sent to Gaza are going to be sitting ducks for anyone who wants to escalate things. If I were HAMAS, would attack them as soon as possible, and I might do it if I were the Israelis, too. This decision by Biden is just horrible.
Talk about 'taking ownership ,' hey?
Totally agree. Sounds like another inane “tripwire” move. Instead, we should be pulling troops out (Iraq, Syria). But no, Zhou and company only seem to know how to double down on stupid. Remember Tower 123?
Victor Orban is a smart guy.... and more importantly he is a leader who actually cares about his people and believes that elected officials should represent their peoples' interests. U.S. politicians: note and observe.
As regards the Pentagon and the CIA: I happened to view the Duran's video today with Tony Shaffer. If you don't know him, Google. He is a Reaganite with a background pretty high up in the military and also has a great deal of counter intelligence experience with a specialty in Russia. He is vehemently anti-Neocon; he was aligned with Mike Flynn in attempting to influence the first Trump administration to keep out folks like Bolton. He is still working to keep out such people from a second Trump admin.
Anyway, he says that the current "Intelligence" leadership (along the lines of Clapper and Brennan) are entirely politicized. They don't feed real intelligence assessments to the White House, only those items that support the preferred political narrative. Same with Austin and the DoD and the Generals within - all are political animals and all their actions are directed out of their personal ambition politically. Shaffer says that a new Trump admin will need to clear out the highest three levels of both the IC and the DoD. This is what has shocked European elites. They are now realizing they put their faith in people who are totally out of touch with reality and still refuse to recognize the truth of what is going on in Ukraine and Israel. A real cluster****.
Shaffer is working with Heritage Foundation to influence MAGA foreign policy appointments in a second Trump admin. They can use our prayers, IMO.
What matters is the trend.
Domain #1: Financial Warfare
U.S. has thrown the kitchen sink at Russia, and Russia’s economy is growing, while Europe is in recession.
Powell’s higher interest rates are drawing down the Euro dollar.
And the Petro dollar is losing usage,
U.S. and Europe have destroyed their credibility as financial safe havens.
Summary - U.S. has over played the financial war gambit and is paying for it with continued dedollarization trend that is not stopping. The future Trend is very negative for the West.
Domain #2: Economic Warfare
I see no difference from #1.
The exception is how China has bought the U.S. elites to de industrialize the U.S.
Plus the U.S. and the West are destroying their economies with climate change / green agendas / Wef insanity.
Domain #3: Cyber Warfare
U.S. is incredibly susceptible in this area. U.S. government and private industry have been hacked A-Z by China. Great firewall of China makes it harder to hack into China by the U.S.
Domain #4: Information Warfare
In the West, the West still has an advantage due to all the censorship/ dis information/ mal information efforts by the Western Internet giants with government backing.
Domain #5: Deniable Sabotage
The U.S. seems to deliberately turn a blind eye to Chinese funding. On big stuff it’s hard to surpass Nordstream. British seem to do lots of projecting on Russia.
Domain #6: Biological Warfare
- there seems to be no difference between biological defense and offense. On the U.S. side we seem to have a Dr. Strangelove mentality, of hubris and incompetence.
Domain #7: Proxy Warfare
Ukraine has resulted in 500,000 Ukrainian’s killed and wounded, so that’s hard to surpass. Only cost what, $400 Billion? Plus the devastation of Syria. The Iranian use of proxies is driving the U.S. into fits, at a much lower cost.
For overall effect the West, they basically money bombed their proxies. With the decline of the Eurodollar and Petrodollar this may no longer be possible in the future. Plus all U.S. proxies have been burned.
Re Domain #2: Economic Warfare
"The exception is how China has bought the U.S. elites to de industrialize the U.S."
It does sorta look that way, but I wonder if it was not the U.S. elites who, in fact, sold out to China for what appears now to have been short term gain with horrifying long term losses. Nobody forced the U.S. to de-industrialize. That was our decision. To close the factories in Akron and Youngstown and Toledo and Deerborn and produce in China and elsewhere.
What, were the Chinese going to say, "No. We won't take your factory...It will be bad for Ohio?"
I suppose one can argue that deindustrialization is inevitable when the apparent *internal* costs of production in one place become so much lower than in another place.
But what U.S. business and government leadership seems to have failed to take into account is the *external* costs of deindustrialization. Sure, a flat screen tv could be made far more cheaply in China than in the U.S., and sold to the American consumer at a much lower price than an American made tv. But what of the impact on the American communities which depended on manufacturing for their existence?
John Russo and Sherry Lee Linkon at Youngstown State University have addressed the costs of deindustrialization in their article "The Social Costs Of Deindustrialization".
Link: https://ysu.edu/center-working-class-studies/social-costs-deindustrialization
They write,
"The social costs of deindustrialization are significant, longlasting and wideranging, if for no other reason than sheer numbers. The deindustrialization of the 1970s and 80s was "cataclysmic"; more than 32 million jobs were lost...More recently, ... between 1995 and 2004, almost 700,000 firms closed each year, affecting 6.1 million workers, and an additional 1.7 million firms contracted annually, affecting another 11.8 million workers.
"But job loss does not affect individuals only, although it touches many who, having dedicated their lives and sometimes their health to employers, now feel betrayed and economically expendable. As a laidoff ... worker in Louisville, Ky., explained, "I've always been a hard worker....You go in there and give a guy a day's work for a day's pay." But, he lamented, the company didn't see it that way: "I gave them 110 percent. They paid me for 110 percent but they did everybody out there wrong."...Another laidoff worker suggested that U.S. companies were "letting the people of America down," and this would "eventually come back to them."
"Deindustrialization undermines the social fabric of communities, states and the nation. The social costs of deindustrialization include the loss of jobs, homes and health care; reductions in the tax base, which in turn lead to cuts in necessary public services like police and fire protection; increases in crime both immediately and longterm; decaying local landscapes; increases in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence and depression; declines in nonprofits and cultural resources; and loss of faith in institutions such as government, business, unions, churches and traditional political organizations.
"Even when workers find new jobs or when communities succeed in bringing in new employers, these new jobs often pay less, offer fewer benefits, are less likely to provide union protections and, in many cases, are temporary, contingent or parttime. Finally, widespread job loss, especially in communities that rely on just one or two industries, undermines the community's identity and sense of competence. Deindustrialized communities too often become sites of persistent struggle, creating a cycle of failure from which it is difficult to escape."
I think Donald Trump appreciates this and I think that in many respects this is what MAGA is all about. Joe Biden touts his 'Working Class Joe' persona, but, in fact, it is the policies of his party and his backers which have accommodated deindustrialization without accounting for the enormous toll it has taken on our country. It has come with horrific costs which, I would submit, the Democrats still do not acknowledge.
It looks to me like the day of reckoning is still coming.
https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/trade/what-happened-when-china-joined-wto
Gut feelings on China, and how U.S. elites have been a combination of useful idiots, greed, and collaborators. I am sure there is a lot more I am not aware of yet.
1. U.S. allowed China to take advantage of U.S. companies with technology transfer deals. You want business, then give your technology.
2. It was only under Trump there was any pushback to Chinas economic policy.
3. Lots of U.S. technology companies were allowed to be find to China.
4. China was allowed to under price rare earths, that drive U.S. producers out of business.
5. Diane Feinstein became very rich by invite only deals. This is just the tip of the ice berg. I wonder what legislation helped China? Clinton allowed Loral to solve China’s rocket issues.
6. Allowing U.S. drugs to be produced in China with basically no supervision. And predatory pricing was also used to destroy U.S. production.
"Gut feelings on China, and how U.S. elites have been a combination of useful idiots, greed, and collaborators. I am sure there is a lot more I am not aware of yet."
Of course -- the subject is deeply complex.
But at the end of the day, "U.S. elites" absolutely knew what they were doing. In order to take the profits available by moving U.S. manufacturing to China and elsewhere, U.S. elites sold out to China (trade secrets, protectionism, currency manipulation, etc., etc.) and they sold out the American worker ("Youngstown", fentanyl, open borders, family disintegration, destruction of the American City, etc., etc.)
So who were the architects of the Great Sell Out?
Well, you can start with Nixon and Kissinger and then move on to The Committee to Save the World (Hah!) That was Time magazine's 1999 honorific for Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, to whom Bill Clinton delegated American economic policy. Link: https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054093,00.html
The boom was on as we rationalized America's transformation from an industrial economy to a service economy and 'financialization' replaced manufacturing as America's primary product. Wall Street (Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and their 'clients') got very very rich and the American worker and all of his and her dependents were crushed. The 'wealth transfer' was enormous. You can see the result today.
Once initiated, the result was inevitable and, yes, they absolutely knew what they were doing.
Postscript: Of course they knew what they were doing. As J. Wellington Wimpy (of Popeye cartoon fame) said long ago, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Nothing new.
Totally agree with all the above, but wouldn't you also trace this back to the Reagan years and, moving forward, people like Phil Gramm?
I would posit that this was brought about by a combination of cynicism and gullibility.
Cynicism of the ruling class to financialize the economy by selling our industry and the futures of Americans. I believe that the people behind this knew what they were doing and did it anyway out of self interest--to enrich themselves and let the rest take care of themselves.
Gullibility, because this insane program was cynically sold to Americans using the snake oil of Libertarianism--free trade and open borders and information jobs will make us all rich.
Yes. The seductive, siren song of libertarianism turns out to be utterly false. Like Marxism, libertarianism ultimately benefits not those who practice it, but those who control those who practice it.
It turns out that the liberal socialist left is the party of the rich rentier class, out to keep the workers down by importing cheap labor for lawn and house care while exporting jobs that might otherwise create an uppity middle class. And white women are indoctrinated in this in college.
Wow; what a blog post. Packed to the gills.
1st) Where's India on the list? Their going to support whoever provides them with natural resources.
2nd) Can China survive economic sanctions (#3) if they invade Taiwan? Economically, China's struggling right now. Will their people push back and potentially cause regime change?
3rd) I think most of the 1st 6 (maybe not all) will occur before proxy war (#7).
4th) US defense strategy has stagnated for 20 years. Russia and even China have evolved over time. The US hegemony has prevented us from thinking outside of the box and re-imaging future conflicts. Further impacted now with DEI center stage.
5th) the list of US/EU allies shown above is as suggested loose. I doubt this can be counted on especially with conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.
6th) I don't see the CIA converting camel jockeys into intelligence assets anytime soon.
Thanks for the stimulation Mark and I'm sure Ray's (SoCal) list will be awesome.
"5th) the list of US/EU allies shown above is as suggested loose. I doubt this can be counted on especially with conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East."
Yes. BRICS is expanding (BRICS+). Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE are now members. Saudi Arabia has applied and been admitted. Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, and Palestine, among others, have applied for membership.
BRICS+ is closely associated with OPEC (and OPEC+) which includes the oil-producing BRICS+ members, plus Iraq and Kuwait.
Closely associated through BRICS members Russia, China and India is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which comprises China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as four Observer States interested in full membership (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia) and nine Dialogue Partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia).
How many of these BRICS, OPEC and SCO members and associates is the US counting on to back it in the Middle East?
How many of these BRICS, OPEC and SCO members and associates is the US counting on to back it in the Middle East?
Publicly or privately? Publicly I would venture to say all. Privately... not so much if their smart but again haven't shown this yet.
#4 is huge. The fact that our defense industry is profit based rather than purpose based has made all the difference. No none in government has examined how our defense spending has supported strategic goals for the last 30+ years. It has been all about making money for the defense contractors - nothing else. For that matter, no one has even defined any strategic goals since the end of the USSR.
Good point. Where's the incentive for R&D? Profit's are eroded by R&D.
Yes, iirc in a recent Duran with Ambassador Chas Freeman, he states precisely that on the fall of the Soviet Union, the US failed to open its mind and rethink the world, bringing Russia into the fold and dropping the Cold War mindset. Such a wasted opportunity (talk about letting a crisis go to waste!) and which led Nato to transform itself from containment to agression….with carnage and devastation in Ukraine and a global majority looking for ways to contain us (US)!
Rahm would be extremely disappointed.
Mark, I made it about three parapgraphs before I had to stop and quote Barack Obama. "Let me be clear."
The Pentagon got it exactly right when they said that the CIA is "lacking in intelligence."
The issue is not, as the second quote says, an "intel gap." The CIA has all the data that it needs. They are simply, "lacking in intelligence."
They are lacking in incentive to apply any intelligence; or more fundamentally to examine data objectively as input to such examination.
Agreed. Patience is a key weapon for them, and one we no longer understand.