Friday 29th of March 2024

adding to the sauce...

fakes

US Fake Intelligence Allegations Echo 50 Years of Military Deceit
OPINION
Allegations US Central Command (CENTCOM) distorted intelligence related to the fight against the Daesh, if confirmed, would repeat a longstanding pattern of the military fabricating analyses to satisfy political leaders, experts told Sputnik.


WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Last week, a US Congress report revealed that Central Command (CENTCOM) distorted intelligence to present a positive outlook of anti-Daesh efforts in Iraq and Syria.


© AP PHOTO/Daesh Recruits Don’t Know Much About Islam, According to Leaked Documents


“We have encountered the readiness of ambitious colonels and generals to ‘cook’ analyses of all kinds since the early 1960s, not just intelligence,” retired US Army Colonel and historian Douglas Macgregor told Sputnik. “When the truth is ugly, only a lie can be beautiful. It’s that simple.”

Ever since US Army Chief of Staff General George Decker, who tried to warn against the United States getting involved with Vietnam in the 1960s, was dismissed, US Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs and service chiefs have consistently told their political masters whatever they wanted to hear, Macgregor stated.

“The tradition has been upheld since by a series of equally politicized and sycophantic Chairmen and Chiefs.”

As a result, top generals have colluded with US presidents to cover up major policy failures, Macgregor explained.

“Whenever the White House feels the need to compensate for failed policies and strategy, presidents and their administrations pressure the military’s senior leadership to provide good news [and] to spin the story,” Macgregor said.

Macgregor praised late Soviet Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov for trying to warn the Soviet leadership about the military difficulties of intervening in Afghanistan in 1979.

“Decker’s warning is reminiscent of Marshal Ogarkov’s later warning to the Politburo regarding Afghanistan.”

A recent example of the pattern was the exaggerated claims of success for General David Petraeus’s counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq a decade ago, Petraeus’s policies in reality consolidated Iranian control of Iraq and set the stage for a regional Sunni-Shia war, Macgregor maintained.


© REUTERS/ ALI HASHISHOHas the US Turned a Blind Eye to Rise of Daesh in Southern Afghanistan?


However, “That was of little concern to the Surge architects or to the Bush White House. What the White House wanted was relief from the criticism and clear sailing for the next presidential election… In the long-run, it proved disastrous,” Macgregor concluded.

California State University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Beau Grosscup agreed with Macgregor that the practice of encouraging the presentation and manipulation of false intelligence at the highest US policymaking levels went back to Vietnam.

“This is just the latest example of a longstanding tradition of massaging ‘intelligence’ to serve National Security State interests,” Grosscup said.

Since the Vietnam War, Grosscup concluded, the Pentagon has been hugely successful at monopolizing the reporting of combat events.

Doug Macgregor holds a doctoral degree in international relations from the US Military Academy at West Point. He commanded in the Battle of 73 Easting, a decisive tank fight during the 1991 Gulf War.


US Distorted Intelligence May Explain Daesh Survival - Ex-Ambassador
Ex-CIA/NSA Chief Questions Clinton, Trump Fitness to Work With US Intelligence
US National Intelligence Chief: Russia Could ‘Drive Wedge’ Between Turkey, NATO
US Intelligence Not Ready to Name Party Behind DNC Hack

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20160816/1044304812/us-fake-intelligence-allegations.html

No need for Sputnik to tell us how to suck eggs... we've known for a long time that the US has been manipulating intel to suit the next move... (they lied)

 

of course...

Urinating standards of Acrophobia is the official measure of pissing in one pants while being afraid of heights. I though you should know this. Psychological management designed to make one believe one is the greatest (complex of superiority) tends to allay the fear.

la warrior clinton and other warrior females...

 

In a seemingly full-throated promise to voters in Scranton, Pa. on Monday, Hillary Clinton said adding “American ground troops” in the war against ISIS in Syria “is off the table.”

But every message coming from her surrogates in the media and in the Washington defense establishment has been that she will “lean in” harder in Syria, and whether you want to call it “added ground troops” or something else, everyone in her orbit is calling for expanded U.S. intervention—including personnel and firepower—in the region, even at the risk of confrontation with Russia.

For weeks, a parade of high-stepping national-security officials—some barely out of government service—have been rattling their sabers passionately for a Hillary Clinton presidency. From Michael Vickers, a former intelligence official most celebrated for his promotion of hunt-to-kill operations in the War on Terror, to (Ret.) Gen. John Allen and ex-CIA Chief Mike Morrell, there is a growing backbench of Washington establishment macho men—and women—who testify to Clinton’s “run it up the gut” security chops, and more than one has noted her well-publicized break with President Obama on Syria. She, of course, having been more hawkish than the other from the start.

Her advisors say Syria will take top priority in her first days in office, and, in addition to ISIS, President Bashar Assad must go. So it is important to examine what a real Clinton Syria policy might look like despite her rhetoric on the campaign trail.  

There are three things to look at:

1 . What Clinton’s shadow national-security team—specifically her likely defense secretary, Michele Flournoy, and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which was founded in anticipation of Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid—have said on the subject.

2 .What Clinton’s campaign and foreign-policy surrogates are saying.

3. The neoconservative refugees from the Republican Party who have thrown their influence behind Clinton.

♦♦♦

Flournoy is no stranger to the national-security establishment. Harvard-educated, she went from the ivory tower to Bill Clinton’s first-term administration, where she served in strategic-policy roles in the Pentagon. During the Bush administration, she toiled in the National Defense University as an instructor and entered the think tank world before launching CNAS with Kurt Cambpell. With CNAS, she hoped to advance Clinton’s candidacy around the idea that the flagging war in Afghanistan could be turned around with the same counterinsurgency (COIN) policies that Gen. David Petraeus had “successfully” executed in Iraq.

When Obama won the Democratic nomination instead, the think tank deftly adjusted. Flournoy and Campbell eventually scooped up key posts in the Pentagon and State Department. She was the third-highest-ranking civilian in the Pentagon before leaving service in 2012. COIN withered on the vine as Afghanistan became a greater quagmire.

Flournoy took herself out of the running to replace retiring Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in 2014. Speculation abounds, but most believe she was keeping her powder dry for Clinton.

Flournoy now wears many hats, and one of them is as a national-security advisor to Clinton. And whatever she may have said to the contrary, the CNAS reports she helps to cultivate specifically advocate additional U.S. personnel in the region for combat purposes, in addition to new airstrikes and direct conflict with Assad forces as well as ISIS.

To be exact: “Military commanders on the ground should be authorized to conduct direct-action raids in Iraq and Syria in order to degrade ISIS’ ability to plot external attacks, and sufficient resources should be authorized to carry out and support these operations.” The report that sentence comes from, released in June, was written by a CNAS study group headed by Flournoy. It calls not for a “fundamental shift in current U.S. strategy,” but “some course corrections.” “Most importantly, it means a willingness to lean further forward in the types of military action the United States would take in this territory,” it explained.

While the emphasis is on arming and training local opposition forces (a strategy that was proposed but did not work so well in Afghanistan, and ultimately also Iraq), it calls for the creation of “no bomb zones” in opposition-held parts of Syria to protect them from pro-Assad airstrikes. This is in line Clinton’s public position, too, according to her campaign website.

But the CNAS strategy is much more explicit: While working with the coalition partners who will somehow emerge in 2017, the U.S. will add more boots on the ground. The report asserts at the start that this would not mean “conventional forces,” but then goes on to say the strategy would require “quick reaction forces, logistics, intelligence, force protection (e.g., base security), fire support, medical evacuation support and air support,” in addition to advisors and “counter network” personnel.

The report also calls for “an expanded campaign of intelligence collection, airstrikes, and direct-action raids” to “further degrade ISIS’ capabilities.” On the no-bombing zones, the report says the U.S. would retaliate against Assad assets if necessary. It acknowledges the risks of inflaming tensions with Russia, which is employing its own airstrikes on behalf of Assad, but there seems to be hope of a “power sharing” agreement down the road.

“Establishing a no-bombing zone would risk escalation with Russia, but this concern is manageable given that neither side wants to enter a direct conflict and the United States needs to exert some military pressure if it wishes to change Russian and regional calculus and empower more acceptable actors on the ground,” the report states.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-syria-war-plans/

-------------

McCaskill and Flournoy are two female warrior on the side of La Clinton waiting impatiently for the result of the Presidential elections, to send young males/females to their deaths in Syria — for NO REAL REASONS other than to satisfy their US clients — the Saudis, who wish for the removal of Assad.

 

Bernie Sanders should come back and fight LaFemme on this level: Here is a poll run by NBC:

 

YES  62734 83%

NO 12482      16%

 

see also: http://nbcpoll.com/nbc-poll-majority-say-clintons-are-corrupted/

preparing illegal offensives with media crap...

Patterns have long since emerged.  We know that each illegal war of conquest is prefaced by a Public Relations campaign that demonizes the target country’s leader and its government as it lies about on-the-ground realities.  Muammar Gaddafi, for example, was presented to Western media consumers as a lunatic and despot. The Western narratives, however, were contradicted by the fact that he earned broad-based support from Libyans, all of whom enjoyed public services such as free healthcare and schooling, and a high standard of living.  

The same demonization campaign is being waged against the hugely popular Dr. Bashar al-Assad, the democratically –elected President of Syria.

Terrorist –embedded propagandists teach us that he is an evil dictator who kills his own people, and that “he must go”; however, credible evidence inverts this logic.

Henry Lowendorf, a member of the Executive Board of the U.S Peace Council’s Peace and Fact-Finding Delegation to Syria -- recently returned from Syria -- reports, that, “What we saw (in Syria) goes against everything we read in the United States.”

He repudiates the Western media’s demonization campaign against the government of President Assad and the Syrian Arab Army in these words: 

“When you go to Syria, which I did last month, the popularity of the government and the Syrian Arab Army is rampant. It's not out of some dream fantasy. It comes obviously from the government and the army being the only thing between living a secular life on the one hand and the hatred and violence of ISIS and the various other terrorist groups underwritten by the terrorist Saudis and US and their allies on the other. The refugees who don't leave Syria do not flee to the terrorist side, they flee to the government side, in huge numbers. So would all of us in similar circumstances. Syrians do not want their country turned into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or any of the other countries the US has liberated.”

 

Read more: http://ahtribune.com/opinion/1148-henry-lowendorf.html