As most readers here know, Jeffrey Sachs has been an outspoken critic of the Neocon foreign policy our country has followed at least since the Clinton Administration and which the Biden Administration is following and, as such, Sachs is a strong critic of our current misadventures in Ukraine and the Middle East. Perhaps less known is Sach's research and analysis of JFK's political efforts in 1963, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, to establish a ground breaking lasting peace with the Soviet Union. Sachs makes the case In his book, To Move the World: JFK's Quest for Peace, and in this interview with Chris Hedges.
For those of us trying to gain a comprehensive understanding of how we have ended up where we are today this is a most interesting watch. Highly recommended.
Thanks for sharing the video. My only comment is we pretty much know how we got here with the Israel Lobby driving our policy.....politician greed over the security of our country and the theft of tax payer money to expand the wealth and security of Israel instead.
I agree that the history of the establishment of the Israel and the impact of the Israel Lobby are fairly well understood. What Sachs elucidates is the many, inter-related efforts to prevent peace between the US and the Soviet Union, including in all likelihood, the involvement of the CIA, which has shaped the world we live in today.
I'm listening to Sachs now. Excellent. Just heard how JFK's speech at AU was republished in Pravda--our oligarchy by contrast tries to shield us from The Other. My wife has bought the book so will be reading it to me. :-)
That sort of information from Sachs is important, but I would like to hear solutions on how we change this mind set and the people who create the road blocks.
Hah! The $64 Question. I (and others) have addressed this question many times in the comments here.
No easy answers.
Perhaps if the People voted resoundingly for Abraham Lincoln's prescription at Gettysburg: “that these dead shall not have died in vain– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”
But those currently in power will fight this outcome tooth and nail.
"But those currently in power will fight this outcome tooth and nail."
Yes, there is that problem, the other , of many, is Multiculturalism.
When the U.S. Congress passed, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the move was largely seen as symbolic.
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
This bill was ostensibly designed to end discrimination yet we have more discrimination now than we did then and the " the bill has flooded our cities with immigrants, it has upset the ethnic mix, and the relaxation of standards of admission and the loss of jobs for Americans" has proven, again that Democrats lie. The admission of so many immigrants who do not embrace the American Creed, have no experience with a Republic form of government, and arrive with malevolent designs seeking to establish their own base of power and the chaos is driven by those who wish to turn us into slaves and profit from our woes. So, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” is perishing right before our eyes.
I have felt, for all of my adult life, that what we today are calling the Jewish Lobby, was fervently behind immigration 'liberalization' (not sure this is the right term) because it feared/fears (justifiably? unjustifiably?) that a United States dominated by its founding ethnic groups is an existential risk to Jewish Americans. Funny, because I don't think 19th Century Jewish immigrants to the United States felt this way, but I do feel many 20th Century Jewish Americans did, and especially the organized Jewish Lobby.
The consequences have been devastating because while the result has succeeded as presumably intended to substantially reduce the power of the founding ethnic groups, it has also done untold (intended? unintended?) harm to the integrity of our national project, including the not-so crazy possibility of destroying it.
Trump, in his arrogance and ignorance, made the most egregious mistake.
He went with the time proven "Best and brightest" bullshit theme. Look at all the people he surrounded himself with. Look at his cabinet level appointments. These were are Washington or New York insiders. They had no loyalty to him and when the pressure and attacks came and the litany of accusations, these people did nothing , but stand aside and watch the fireworks.
At the beginning of Trump's "presidential elect period", Trump had a program to apply for positions in his government at a web site. This was for outside beltway individuals to be appointed to the government to ensure new " outside" blood in DC. Probably not one individual was hired from that program.
If Trump wins again, Trump's great defeat will be, to once again, hire individuals who are members of the blob.
There's a lot of agreement re Trump's personnel failures.
But your comment ignore the fact that his appointments require Senate's confirmation.
His best play was probably Grennel. How many of those cards does he have? Or do we just hope that Luongo's manila folder theory is running in overdrive?
I've always wondered why they don't pound the selections down the throat of the opposition, wear them down and refuse to consider any legislation until he gets the people he wants.
During his first term Trump played 'give a little' to 'get a little'. The Art of the Deal. It works in real estate transactions. It didn't work in the Swamp. Now he knows. Or should know.
I continue to wonder how many 'supporters' were placed in the 2016 Trump Campaign by the CIA (or some other agency of the Deep State) with a view towards undermining Trump as needed at convenient moments in various different ways. As Mark knows (and I believe strongly disagrees with me...but has not convinced me to abandon my concern) I have felt that it is likely that Carter Page was a CIA plant in the 2016 Trump Campaign. I have also written here (perhaps on the old blog) my many doubts about the bona fides of George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Sam Clovis. I believe Jeff Sessions falls into the same category. I have come to believe that Bill Barr is in this category. I'm not saying I'm sure. I'm just saying I do wonder and have not been convinced otherwise.
Barr yes, Page no. Page demonstrated he was basically uncontrollable. Not suitable for a project like this. I'd be open to Manafort. Flynn was a loose cannon as far as the Deep State was concerned, due to his time at DIA.
Understand and some require conformation. But the majority do not. The Plum book is the reference l speak of. The Senate appointments are tricky. It depends which party is in control and who is in the leadership. At the beginning of Trump's first term McConnell did not do trump any favors and in the house., Ryan was no friend. But the life blood of the Agencies are the high level and mid level supervisors. These are the ones that need to be replaced, just as much as the cabinet level. There are also ways to game the system, such as putting people in place " temporarily" when congress is out of session and leaving them there until being forced to replace them. Also, There are other strategies to be used. This drain the swamp thing will be a process, not an immediate kill shot.
Great write up Mark. Trump was a gamble in 2016 against a known in the form of Hillary!!!!! and I think the gamble was worth it because of what we have learned about the deep state and the world. 2024 is another gamble: does Trump get what needs to be done vs a known disaster in the form of Zhou. Will Trump pull people like MacGregor in right away? How many MacGregor types are there? Enough to staff the relevant agencies? Again we reach under the lid of Pandora’s Box…
I've heard the Duran, Krainer, Luongo numerous times say that Trump contacted the Iranians through the Swiss embassy to let them know the parameters of a counter strike that he would accept without further escalation.
I think we all know that the Iranians didn't feel bound by that going forward. Trump may have felt the episode was closed. Doesn't mean it was. That's always the problem with these so called tit for tat things.
Oh sure, I was just responding to the point about the Iranians warning us ahead of time, saying it wasn't a one-sided affair.
And I don't think these are contradictory narratives. Trump may have communicated parameters, but, given what we now know about Iran's capabilities, Iran had the choice of whether to follow them.
Iran's restraint fits what we've now been hearing about WWIII asymmetrical warfare. They didn't need to draw blood, only communicate their capabilities, avoid needless and wasteful escalation, and keep their eyes on the prize for the long game.
I wonder if our own Intel community and of course the military strongly encouraged this strike on Sulemani's as means to validate their assumptions relative to understanding the strength of Iran's ballistic missile and response capabilities. In other words, this was intentional to assess enemy strength especially given the warning to remove human capital.
Regarding Suleimanis killing, I recall some military/intel person reading a list of US personnel whose deaths he was directly responsible for (i did just try to find it without success), and this given as a reason for the action. I also remember Trump tell his military experts that the strike they wanted and the deaths that would follow, as a response was too extreme for shooting down an unmanned drone. Was it too extreme, in light of my first sentence, I’m not so sure, but I’m a vengeful kinda guy.
the case against Soleimani was the allegation that Iran had supplied weapons to the Iraqi resistance to US occupation back in 2004-2008. Subsequently, Soleimani had worked with US in stopping ISIS advance on Baghdad in 2014. Soleimani appears to have done more than anyone to stop ISIS in 2014 while Obama admin dithered. Concurrent with Soleimani assassination, US bombed Iraqi military in western Iraq that were fighting against ISIS remnants (calling them "Iran-backed militias"). Their primary location was on a secondary highway from Baghdad to Damascus that Israel objected to as a "land bridge". (The main highway is controlled by US base at at-Tanf). US neocons were really mad when Syrian army advanced rapidly down the Euphrates in 2017 and freed a route between Syria and Iraq that was not interdicted by the US.
Many believe ISIS was the brainchild of Mossad with CIA collaboration to continue creating chaos in the region to keep the money flowing. If Soleimani was critical in halting the progress of ISIS perhaps the spooks needed him gone. Just a thought.
Right. My view is that the assassination was primarily motivated by the recent events in Syria rather than events in Iraq in the early part of the century. In particular, Soleimani was regarded as a key adviser to Hezbollah and the Syrian government on military matters.
Interesting how (appropriately) the hundred(s) of Millions of lives lost to the various "isms" of the 20th Century have been presented now appear alongside the 'righteous' infliction (directly and indirectly/via proxy) of just-as-dead folks by crusading US leadership. I guess somehow our ability to manufacture spectacular killing paraphernalia is supposed to be some sort of justification. Thanks for your post(s) Mark. Tho' sometimes troubling, the truth is the best medicine. Blessings to you, your loved ones and all my fellow readers here. (WrH)
I remember hearing that they routed the drone intentionally, trying to goad Iran and force Trump's hand.
I also remember an article by the arch never-Trump David French arguing that the Soleimani strike was legal because he was an enemy general in a combat zone. Perhaps French had another agenda for defending Trump in that instance... but I have long thought the strike was legal. I'm open to considering whether it was a mistake. (I also remember reading that certain senators had threatened him with impeachment if he didn't go through with it. )
Perhaps getting rid of Soleimani was the least bad option on the table. Maybe he was a rabid neocon in Iran, and half the leadership there is happy to see him gone. Criticizing Trump on the basis of so many things we simply don’t know troubles me.
As you final paragraph states, Mark, the bottom line is whether Trump has learnt from his mistakes. He might have done, but we will only know the truth if/when he returns to the WH. He's going to be absolutely ruthless if he wants to survive, let alone turn things around in the US. Does he have the cojones to sack the top 30% of every government agency, including the military, CIA and FBI? I hope to God he does, otherwise we will be facing a repeat of his first term but with even higher stakes.
Anybody who gets the presidency is still human, and may make mistakes. Sometimes they may be decisions about policy, sometimes they may be decisions about staff. And staffers will make mistakes, too. In the lead up to the 2016 election, Trump was not even my 3rd or 4th choice at that time. But he won the race. I was pleasantly surprised by some of his policies, and was disappointed in 2020. I have known about Biden for a long time! Jim Biden's graft was out there for years, before Hunter grew up. And Biden's years of lies, especially about things that can be checked (like his academic record) have long been evidence that he is stupid.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, major changes are coming. I recently read two books by Peter Zeihan: "Disunited Nations" (published in 2020) and "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" (published in 2022). Zeihan is a geopolitical strategist and consultant. At one time he was a vice president at Stratfor, before going out on his own.
Zeihan is predicting the end of the "rules-based order" dictated by the US after WWII, and the end of "globalization." And it is going to be messy for a while. He thinks international trade will decline from its current levels, manufacturing will draw back to regional bases, and the US will draw back to the Western Hemisphere and leave the Eastern Hemisphere mostly on its own--both Asia and Europe.
I have also read "The Storm Before the Calm" (2020) by his former boss at Stratfor, George Friedman. Friedman's book is shorter; Zeihan includes more data on all kinds of factors, and more on other countries, including China, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Russia, and more.
Some of it may come down to whether the ruling class of the US can face the real problems and cut their losses, or whether they keep trying to keep a dying system going. But Zeihan's view is that the "golden age" of the last 40 years is ending. Times will be a lot harder, mainly because the population decline in most of the advanced nations is going to kill long-term prosperity for them. (He, and Friedman, think North America will come out better off than the rest.)
Good information, Phil however I believe Zeihan tends to point to the obvious. I find this blog site provides some great information on the whys of where our world is heading and why the scramble for scarce resources is going to be with us for a while. This is just one of the reasons for the Zionist war on Russia and Israel's attempt at expansion. The Gaza strip has lots of LNG off it's shore line and the Zionists want it.. Creating an alternate path for oil delivery to Europe by by passing the Suez is another reason.
With due respect to Zeihan, it’s not hard to “predict” things that are currently happening. And my bet is the US ruling class will face nothing and attempt nothing except to keep their own hold on power.
Zeihan (and Friedman) are not looking so much at what will happen in the next couple of years, but at what will happen over the next 10-20 years. I wouldn't write them off yet.
Also, one of Zeihan's major predictions was the decline of current long-distance international shipping. What the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea is raising shipping costs--and may even cause that to happen sooner.
I would recommend reading "Disunited Nations" and then re-reading "End of the World..." in the light of that.
Apparently, even the person starring as an "obama" wants out.
“As Malia Obama makes strides in her Hollywood career, she’s decided to take on a new name.
The writer and producer, who is also the eldest daughter of Barack and Michelle Obama, will now go by her middle name: Malia Ann, perhaps in an effort to distance herself from her powerful parents’ fame.
The short film, written and directed by Malia, 25, is called The Heart."
Apologies for the left turn . . . but you mentioned my favorite curse word.
I never really got what Obama had to be so arrogant about. He's a complete grifting non-entity. In a sane world, he would have suicidially low self-esteem.
will be a fun summer here with these negotiations going on, Democratic national convention at the UC, and the Kennedy expressway construction which will heat up tempers and temperatures.
More of the “sit down and shut up, we will take from you what we decide” from the enlightened ruling class. We should learn to be grateful they allow us to keep a little bit for ourselves. Once we understand our place and that we work for them, and not the other way around, they still won’t be satisfied.
The RQ-4A Global Hawk is just a big target. I would not be surprised if even a Sam 2 could take it out. It’s just a cheaper platform to do surveillance than using a manned aircraft.
The stealth drone that Obama lost over Iran is more concerning 13 years ago.
Soleimani‘s assassination I have mixed feelings on. The end result seemed to be more detente between Iran and the Trump after that. The Iranian’s supplied ied parts (explosively formed penetrator, EFP) that were used against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iran has made huge advances in drones, cyberwarfare, and missiles. While the U.S. military since 9-11 has focused on fighting insurgencies and E.S.G. The debacles in Ukraine and Yemen attest to this focus.
My guess is the gulf wars shocked our competitors with our military ability, a cold war surplus since allowed to dissipate, and for the last 20+ years China, Russia, and Iran focused on ways to counter the U.S. advantages. While the U.S. elites are still believing in the invincible of the U.S. military and associated technology.
We've overextended ourselves, militarily and financially. We think we're a lot smarter than we really are.
We're going to find out someday.
Having retired from DOD/the Intelligence Community, I can tell you about hubris and the bias that prevail among analysts. I often heard bragging about "speaking truth to power" which meant speaking the zeitgeist of the times, as though the Left hadn't already destroyed the norms that used to prevail, (I am speaking here of tropes uttered in support of LGBT, "strong women", DEI, etc.). Many analysts are legends in their own mind, and it goes up the chain, to managers, SESes, agency heads, cabinet heads, to Congress and the Presidency.
And it the same in the corporate world. No values except status and dominance. It’s going to be a hard landing. The strength of our country is in the very people our ruling class despises. If things go badly we could become the pariah of the world like Germany post WWII. If things go well we will rise from the ashes with a new elite who actually believes in government by, for, and of the people.
My initial reaction upon the assassination of Soleimani was that Trump allowed Pompeo to do it, knowing that the result would be Iraqi parliament kicking the US out, thus achieving his goal. Also, Trump hiring neocons may have been a reaction to being blocked from getting the good people he needed so then strategically going for ‘keep your enemies closer’ and ‘never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’. Maybe Trump doesn’t do this kind of thing consciously, maybe it was just haphazard, or maybe not (obviously the dipshit state was after him from day one), either way the result was Iraq moving towards kicking the US military out. That assassination was the trigger that set in motion eventual US pull out from Iraq.
Was the Covid vax Trump's biggest mistake?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-clearly-hasnt-learned-his-covid-era-mistakes-rfk-jr-says
Is Trump compounding the mistake by not admitting it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqm9Yl1gGEY
As most readers here know, Jeffrey Sachs has been an outspoken critic of the Neocon foreign policy our country has followed at least since the Clinton Administration and which the Biden Administration is following and, as such, Sachs is a strong critic of our current misadventures in Ukraine and the Middle East. Perhaps less known is Sach's research and analysis of JFK's political efforts in 1963, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, to establish a ground breaking lasting peace with the Soviet Union. Sachs makes the case In his book, To Move the World: JFK's Quest for Peace, and in this interview with Chris Hedges.
For those of us trying to gain a comprehensive understanding of how we have ended up where we are today this is a most interesting watch. Highly recommended.
Thanks for sharing the video. My only comment is we pretty much know how we got here with the Israel Lobby driving our policy.....politician greed over the security of our country and the theft of tax payer money to expand the wealth and security of Israel instead.
I agree that the history of the establishment of the Israel and the impact of the Israel Lobby are fairly well understood. What Sachs elucidates is the many, inter-related efforts to prevent peace between the US and the Soviet Union, including in all likelihood, the involvement of the CIA, which has shaped the world we live in today.
I'm listening to Sachs now. Excellent. Just heard how JFK's speech at AU was republished in Pravda--our oligarchy by contrast tries to shield us from The Other. My wife has bought the book so will be reading it to me. :-)
That sort of information from Sachs is important, but I would like to hear solutions on how we change this mind set and the people who create the road blocks.
Hah! The $64 Question. I (and others) have addressed this question many times in the comments here.
No easy answers.
Perhaps if the People voted resoundingly for Abraham Lincoln's prescription at Gettysburg: “that these dead shall not have died in vain– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”
But those currently in power will fight this outcome tooth and nail.
"But those currently in power will fight this outcome tooth and nail."
Yes, there is that problem, the other , of many, is Multiculturalism.
When the U.S. Congress passed, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the move was largely seen as symbolic.
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
This bill was ostensibly designed to end discrimination yet we have more discrimination now than we did then and the " the bill has flooded our cities with immigrants, it has upset the ethnic mix, and the relaxation of standards of admission and the loss of jobs for Americans" has proven, again that Democrats lie. The admission of so many immigrants who do not embrace the American Creed, have no experience with a Republic form of government, and arrive with malevolent designs seeking to establish their own base of power and the chaos is driven by those who wish to turn us into slaves and profit from our woes. So, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” is perishing right before our eyes.
I have felt, for all of my adult life, that what we today are calling the Jewish Lobby, was fervently behind immigration 'liberalization' (not sure this is the right term) because it feared/fears (justifiably? unjustifiably?) that a United States dominated by its founding ethnic groups is an existential risk to Jewish Americans. Funny, because I don't think 19th Century Jewish immigrants to the United States felt this way, but I do feel many 20th Century Jewish Americans did, and especially the organized Jewish Lobby.
The consequences have been devastating because while the result has succeeded as presumably intended to substantially reduce the power of the founding ethnic groups, it has also done untold (intended? unintended?) harm to the integrity of our national project, including the not-so crazy possibility of destroying it.
Trump, in his arrogance and ignorance, made the most egregious mistake.
He went with the time proven "Best and brightest" bullshit theme. Look at all the people he surrounded himself with. Look at his cabinet level appointments. These were are Washington or New York insiders. They had no loyalty to him and when the pressure and attacks came and the litany of accusations, these people did nothing , but stand aside and watch the fireworks.
At the beginning of Trump's "presidential elect period", Trump had a program to apply for positions in his government at a web site. This was for outside beltway individuals to be appointed to the government to ensure new " outside" blood in DC. Probably not one individual was hired from that program.
If Trump wins again, Trump's great defeat will be, to once again, hire individuals who are members of the blob.
These people cannot think outside the box. Why?
Because they are the box.
You heard it here first.
Robert Fausti
LTC, IN
US Army (ret)
<<These people cannot think outside the box. Why?
Because they are the box.>>
Beautifully succinct, 100% accurate.
There's a lot of agreement re Trump's personnel failures.
But your comment ignore the fact that his appointments require Senate's confirmation.
His best play was probably Grennel. How many of those cards does he have? Or do we just hope that Luongo's manila folder theory is running in overdrive?
I've always wondered why they don't pound the selections down the throat of the opposition, wear them down and refuse to consider any legislation until he gets the people he wants.
During his first term Trump played 'give a little' to 'get a little'. The Art of the Deal. It works in real estate transactions. It didn't work in the Swamp. Now he knows. Or should know.
I think Jeff Sessions was his first clue.
I continue to wonder how many 'supporters' were placed in the 2016 Trump Campaign by the CIA (or some other agency of the Deep State) with a view towards undermining Trump as needed at convenient moments in various different ways. As Mark knows (and I believe strongly disagrees with me...but has not convinced me to abandon my concern) I have felt that it is likely that Carter Page was a CIA plant in the 2016 Trump Campaign. I have also written here (perhaps on the old blog) my many doubts about the bona fides of George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Sam Clovis. I believe Jeff Sessions falls into the same category. I have come to believe that Bill Barr is in this category. I'm not saying I'm sure. I'm just saying I do wonder and have not been convinced otherwise.
Barr yes, Page no. Page demonstrated he was basically uncontrollable. Not suitable for a project like this. I'd be open to Manafort. Flynn was a loose cannon as far as the Deep State was concerned, due to his time at DIA.
Understand and some require conformation. But the majority do not. The Plum book is the reference l speak of. The Senate appointments are tricky. It depends which party is in control and who is in the leadership. At the beginning of Trump's first term McConnell did not do trump any favors and in the house., Ryan was no friend. But the life blood of the Agencies are the high level and mid level supervisors. These are the ones that need to be replaced, just as much as the cabinet level. There are also ways to game the system, such as putting people in place " temporarily" when congress is out of session and leaving them there until being forced to replace them. Also, There are other strategies to be used. This drain the swamp thing will be a process, not an immediate kill shot.
Schedule F cannot be instituted fast enough.
Great write up Mark. Trump was a gamble in 2016 against a known in the form of Hillary!!!!! and I think the gamble was worth it because of what we have learned about the deep state and the world. 2024 is another gamble: does Trump get what needs to be done vs a known disaster in the form of Zhou. Will Trump pull people like MacGregor in right away? How many MacGregor types are there? Enough to staff the relevant agencies? Again we reach under the lid of Pandora’s Box…
I've heard the Duran, Krainer, Luongo numerous times say that Trump contacted the Iranians through the Swiss embassy to let them know the parameters of a counter strike that he would accept without further escalation.
I think we all know that the Iranians didn't feel bound by that going forward. Trump may have felt the episode was closed. Doesn't mean it was. That's always the problem with these so called tit for tat things.
Oh sure, I was just responding to the point about the Iranians warning us ahead of time, saying it wasn't a one-sided affair.
And I don't think these are contradictory narratives. Trump may have communicated parameters, but, given what we now know about Iran's capabilities, Iran had the choice of whether to follow them.
Iran's restraint fits what we've now been hearing about WWIII asymmetrical warfare. They didn't need to draw blood, only communicate their capabilities, avoid needless and wasteful escalation, and keep their eyes on the prize for the long game.
I wonder if our own Intel community and of course the military strongly encouraged this strike on Sulemani's as means to validate their assumptions relative to understanding the strength of Iran's ballistic missile and response capabilities. In other words, this was intentional to assess enemy strength especially given the warning to remove human capital.
Regarding Suleimanis killing, I recall some military/intel person reading a list of US personnel whose deaths he was directly responsible for (i did just try to find it without success), and this given as a reason for the action. I also remember Trump tell his military experts that the strike they wanted and the deaths that would follow, as a response was too extreme for shooting down an unmanned drone. Was it too extreme, in light of my first sentence, I’m not so sure, but I’m a vengeful kinda guy.
"a list of US personnel whose deaths he was directly responsible for"
Is there a list somewhere of all the deaths our forever wars have caused? Do those people get to feel vengeful, too?
the case against Soleimani was the allegation that Iran had supplied weapons to the Iraqi resistance to US occupation back in 2004-2008. Subsequently, Soleimani had worked with US in stopping ISIS advance on Baghdad in 2014. Soleimani appears to have done more than anyone to stop ISIS in 2014 while Obama admin dithered. Concurrent with Soleimani assassination, US bombed Iraqi military in western Iraq that were fighting against ISIS remnants (calling them "Iran-backed militias"). Their primary location was on a secondary highway from Baghdad to Damascus that Israel objected to as a "land bridge". (The main highway is controlled by US base at at-Tanf). US neocons were really mad when Syrian army advanced rapidly down the Euphrates in 2017 and freed a route between Syria and Iraq that was not interdicted by the US.
Many believe ISIS was the brainchild of Mossad with CIA collaboration to continue creating chaos in the region to keep the money flowing. If Soleimani was critical in halting the progress of ISIS perhaps the spooks needed him gone. Just a thought.
Right. My view is that the assassination was primarily motivated by the recent events in Syria rather than events in Iraq in the early part of the century. In particular, Soleimani was regarded as a key adviser to Hezbollah and the Syrian government on military matters.
Just one example: The Palestinians are keeping track. I think we know how they feel.
Interesting how (appropriately) the hundred(s) of Millions of lives lost to the various "isms" of the 20th Century have been presented now appear alongside the 'righteous' infliction (directly and indirectly/via proxy) of just-as-dead folks by crusading US leadership. I guess somehow our ability to manufacture spectacular killing paraphernalia is supposed to be some sort of justification. Thanks for your post(s) Mark. Tho' sometimes troubling, the truth is the best medicine. Blessings to you, your loved ones and all my fellow readers here. (WrH)
I remember hearing that they routed the drone intentionally, trying to goad Iran and force Trump's hand.
I also remember an article by the arch never-Trump David French arguing that the Soleimani strike was legal because he was an enemy general in a combat zone. Perhaps French had another agenda for defending Trump in that instance... but I have long thought the strike was legal. I'm open to considering whether it was a mistake. (I also remember reading that certain senators had threatened him with impeachment if he didn't go through with it. )
Perhaps he was protecting the Mossad/CIA angle in the creation of ISIS. This smells like Israel Lobby influence.
I've read that too.
Perhaps getting rid of Soleimani was the least bad option on the table. Maybe he was a rabid neocon in Iran, and half the leadership there is happy to see him gone. Criticizing Trump on the basis of so many things we simply don’t know troubles me.
As you final paragraph states, Mark, the bottom line is whether Trump has learnt from his mistakes. He might have done, but we will only know the truth if/when he returns to the WH. He's going to be absolutely ruthless if he wants to survive, let alone turn things around in the US. Does he have the cojones to sack the top 30% of every government agency, including the military, CIA and FBI? I hope to God he does, otherwise we will be facing a repeat of his first term but with even higher stakes.
Anybody who gets the presidency is still human, and may make mistakes. Sometimes they may be decisions about policy, sometimes they may be decisions about staff. And staffers will make mistakes, too. In the lead up to the 2016 election, Trump was not even my 3rd or 4th choice at that time. But he won the race. I was pleasantly surprised by some of his policies, and was disappointed in 2020. I have known about Biden for a long time! Jim Biden's graft was out there for years, before Hunter grew up. And Biden's years of lies, especially about things that can be checked (like his academic record) have long been evidence that he is stupid.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, major changes are coming. I recently read two books by Peter Zeihan: "Disunited Nations" (published in 2020) and "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" (published in 2022). Zeihan is a geopolitical strategist and consultant. At one time he was a vice president at Stratfor, before going out on his own.
Zeihan is predicting the end of the "rules-based order" dictated by the US after WWII, and the end of "globalization." And it is going to be messy for a while. He thinks international trade will decline from its current levels, manufacturing will draw back to regional bases, and the US will draw back to the Western Hemisphere and leave the Eastern Hemisphere mostly on its own--both Asia and Europe.
I have also read "The Storm Before the Calm" (2020) by his former boss at Stratfor, George Friedman. Friedman's book is shorter; Zeihan includes more data on all kinds of factors, and more on other countries, including China, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Russia, and more.
Some of it may come down to whether the ruling class of the US can face the real problems and cut their losses, or whether they keep trying to keep a dying system going. But Zeihan's view is that the "golden age" of the last 40 years is ending. Times will be a lot harder, mainly because the population decline in most of the advanced nations is going to kill long-term prosperity for them. (He, and Friedman, think North America will come out better off than the rest.)
Good information, Phil however I believe Zeihan tends to point to the obvious. I find this blog site provides some great information on the whys of where our world is heading and why the scramble for scarce resources is going to be with us for a while. This is just one of the reasons for the Zionist war on Russia and Israel's attempt at expansion. The Gaza strip has lots of LNG off it's shore line and the Zionists want it.. Creating an alternate path for oil delivery to Europe by by passing the Suez is another reason.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/12/15/ten-things-that-change-without-fossil-fuels/
With due respect to Zeihan, it’s not hard to “predict” things that are currently happening. And my bet is the US ruling class will face nothing and attempt nothing except to keep their own hold on power.
They sound like a good read, and pretty close to what many of us think. Globalisation seems to have had its day.
Zeihan (and Friedman) are not looking so much at what will happen in the next couple of years, but at what will happen over the next 10-20 years. I wouldn't write them off yet.
Also, one of Zeihan's major predictions was the decline of current long-distance international shipping. What the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea is raising shipping costs--and may even cause that to happen sooner.
I would recommend reading "Disunited Nations" and then re-reading "End of the World..." in the light of that.
I will vote for Donald Trump, but I don't know how capable he is of self-reflection.
He is clearly a better choice than Biden.
@Castelletto
"As someone with a lot of experience in the field..."
Is that the field of malignant narcissism? Personal experience?
Apparently, even the person starring as an "obama" wants out.
“As Malia Obama makes strides in her Hollywood career, she’s decided to take on a new name.
The writer and producer, who is also the eldest daughter of Barack and Michelle Obama, will now go by her middle name: Malia Ann, perhaps in an effort to distance herself from her powerful parents’ fame.
The short film, written and directed by Malia, 25, is called The Heart."
Apologies for the left turn . . . but you mentioned my favorite curse word.
Obama's fragile ego wouldn't be able to take any self-criticism.
I never really got what Obama had to be so arrogant about. He's a complete grifting non-entity. In a sane world, he would have suicidially low self-esteem.
Mistakes other people make:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cost-stop-asking-question-says-chicago-teachers-union-president-strident-speech-about
will be a fun summer here with these negotiations going on, Democratic national convention at the UC, and the Kennedy expressway construction which will heat up tempers and temperatures.
Oh yeah!
In a time of many grotesque scenes that was one of the worst. To think that this creature is a teacher.
More of the “sit down and shut up, we will take from you what we decide” from the enlightened ruling class. We should learn to be grateful they allow us to keep a little bit for ourselves. Once we understand our place and that we work for them, and not the other way around, they still won’t be satisfied.
The RQ-4A Global Hawk is just a big target. I would not be surprised if even a Sam 2 could take it out. It’s just a cheaper platform to do surveillance than using a manned aircraft.
The stealth drone that Obama lost over Iran is more concerning 13 years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Soleimani‘s assassination I have mixed feelings on. The end result seemed to be more detente between Iran and the Trump after that. The Iranian’s supplied ied parts (explosively formed penetrator, EFP) that were used against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iran has made huge advances in drones, cyberwarfare, and missiles. While the U.S. military since 9-11 has focused on fighting insurgencies and E.S.G. The debacles in Ukraine and Yemen attest to this focus.
My guess is the gulf wars shocked our competitors with our military ability, a cold war surplus since allowed to dissipate, and for the last 20+ years China, Russia, and Iran focused on ways to counter the U.S. advantages. While the U.S. elites are still believing in the invincible of the U.S. military and associated technology.
We've overextended ourselves, militarily and financially. We think we're a lot smarter than we really are.
We're going to find out someday.
Having retired from DOD/the Intelligence Community, I can tell you about hubris and the bias that prevail among analysts. I often heard bragging about "speaking truth to power" which meant speaking the zeitgeist of the times, as though the Left hadn't already destroyed the norms that used to prevail, (I am speaking here of tropes uttered in support of LGBT, "strong women", DEI, etc.). Many analysts are legends in their own mind, and it goes up the chain, to managers, SESes, agency heads, cabinet heads, to Congress and the Presidency.
No wonder we flounder in this era of post-truth.
And it the same in the corporate world. No values except status and dominance. It’s going to be a hard landing. The strength of our country is in the very people our ruling class despises. If things go badly we could become the pariah of the world like Germany post WWII. If things go well we will rise from the ashes with a new elite who actually believes in government by, for, and of the people.
I hope and pray Pompeo is not part of his team!
I hear the US ambassador for Haiti post might soon be up for grabs.
My initial reaction upon the assassination of Soleimani was that Trump allowed Pompeo to do it, knowing that the result would be Iraqi parliament kicking the US out, thus achieving his goal. Also, Trump hiring neocons may have been a reaction to being blocked from getting the good people he needed so then strategically going for ‘keep your enemies closer’ and ‘never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’. Maybe Trump doesn’t do this kind of thing consciously, maybe it was just haphazard, or maybe not (obviously the dipshit state was after him from day one), either way the result was Iraq moving towards kicking the US military out. That assassination was the trigger that set in motion eventual US pull out from Iraq.