Search
Recent comments
- I am the storm....
7 hours 30 min ago - biden is a crook....
7 hours 36 min ago - disinfo française......
9 hours 4 min ago - colonial warming.....
9 hours 12 min ago - deserter or double asgent?....
13 hours 3 min ago - bibi's interest.....
16 hours 6 min ago - war and money....
17 hours 30 min ago - lost trust....
19 hours 3 min ago - case dropped....
19 hours 22 min ago - profligate carbon....
19 hours 39 min ago
Democracy Links
Member's Off-site Blogs
war drunks...
war
The Blob Is Addicted To Overseas Interventions
Whichever party wins elections, the foreign policy establishment will find a war to get involved in and a means to justify it.
Since the end of the Cold War there have been few external constraints on U.S. foreign policy. The Soviet Union’s collapse left America as the unipower. “What we say goes,” declared President George H.W. Bush. Washington’s foreign policy establishment, later termed “the Blob,” saw an opportunity to transform the world.
The 1990s featured military interventions in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, and Iraq. All were unnecessary wars of choice, though Panama was close geographically and hosted the important Panama Canal. Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait unsettled the Mideast, but less than had other conflicts, such as the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. Overall, these interventions had only modest consequences for the U.S. All were limited, imposed minimal direct costs, and came to an expeditious end. No one spoke of “endless wars.”
However, the 9/11 attacks triggered a dramatic transformation of U.S. foreign policy. Although President George W. Bush had campaigned for a “humble foreign policy,” he delivered a toxic mix of arrogance, hypocrisy, sanctimony, and incompetence. In Afghanistan he turned a counterterrorism mission against al-Qaeda and the Taliban into endless nation-building.
Much worse, he invaded Iraq—which had no WMDs, as he had falsely claimed—triggering a devastating sectarian war. Thousands of allied troops were killed; tens of thousands were injured; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed; millions were displaced; trillions of dollars were wasted. Religious cleansing destroyed the indigenous Christian community and was followed by devastating attacks on other faith minorities, such as the Yazidis. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was loosed, mutating into the even more destructive Islamic State.
Popular dissatisfaction with the Iraq imbroglio spurred Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain, who never found a war he did not want Americans to fight. The neoconservative coterie, which had expected Iraq to be but the first step in a plan for regional social engineering, sought to avoid blame by attributing Iraq’s failure to President Obama because he withdrew U.S. forces—while following Bush’s withdrawal plan.
Obama was restrained in temperament, but not in action. In Libya he turned a supposed effort at humanitarian protection into regime change, sparking nearly a decade of civil war that has yet to end. In Syria he initiated half-hearted interventions which discouraged a negotiated settlement, promoted the growth of Islamic radicalism, and spurred Iranian and Russian intervention on behalf of the Assad regime. He pushed aside Mideast governments and acted against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. In Yemen he backed Saudi and Emirati aggression, creating a humanitarian catastrophe. Finally, in Afghanistan he twice doubled down in attempting to create a stable, effective central government in a country where one had never existed.
These conflicts continued throughout the Trump administration. Although President Donald Trump popularized antagonism toward “endless wars,” he halted none of them. He initially increased troop levels in Afghanistan and turned America’s presence in both Iraq and Syria into anti-Iran operations, even though the U.S. was not formally at war with Tehran. He unreservedly backed Riyadh’s and Abu Dhabi’s campaign to restore to office a puppet regime in Yemen.
The consequences of these seemingly endless wars—few, if any benefits against significant, continuing costs—led to increasing calls for foreign policy “restraint.” This shocked the Blob, whose members never expected to be held accountable for committing even the most grievous policy malpractice.
For instance, Samantha Power, appointed by Obama because of her vocal advocacy for humanitarian military intervention, was upset when Iraq’s catastrophic failure created resistance to promiscuous war-making outside the Beltway. She opined: “I think there is too much of, ‘Oh, look, this is what intervention has wrought’… one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons.”
After all, what are hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars squanderedcompared to the thrill of engaging in global social engineering? How dare the ungrateful public interfere with the grand ambitions of Blob members?
However, the latter reject claims that the system is biased toward war. According to Hal Brands (Johns Hopkins), Peter Feaver (Duke), and William Inboden (University of Texas), “Discussion over American foreign policy is loud, contentious, diverse, and generally pragmatic.” Loud and contentious, surely, and very partisan. However, diversity is limited, dominated by demands for intensive intervention to transform other nations and micromanage the globe. And pragmatic only in the desire to cause the most damage to others at the least cost to Americans.
Indeed, Blob members’ virtual unanimity on many issues is striking. For instance, Republican and Democratic presidents alike backed both sanctions and threats of war against Iran. Trump and the GOP disagreed with Joe Biden and most Democrats only over whether Obama’s deal was a good one.
Trump’s proposals to withdraw from Afghanistan and Syria generated a nearly united—and often hysterical—opposition from Blob members across the political spectrum. Trump’s criticism of alliances, especially NATO and South Korea, resulted in a similarly frenzied reaction. Republicans and Democrats moved almost in tandem toward confrontation and a possible new cold war against China. Even proposals that risk conflict, such as guaranteeing Taiwan’s security, gained currency throughout the policy community.
In most cases ends are widely shared. Differences usually are partisan and mostly over means. Observed Kelley Vlahos of the Quincy Institute: “there is a narrow spectrum of technical and ideological disagreement in all these cases.” Yet it is the fundamental objectives of today’s foreign policy which should be questioned.
Daniel Drezner of Tufts criticized the notion that there is “a restricted shop” because dissidents such as Andrew Bacevich and Stephen Walt are now heard and even run “conference panels and academic journals.” Yet they remain a decided and distinct minority.
Listen to a sampling of the webinars from Washington’s large, established think tanks and you will hear near unanimity on a range of military and alliance issues. Differences tend toward fine distinctions, with true dissidents rarely heard on panels other than those that they personally organize. The problem is not that gatekeepers consciously bar particular people or viewpoints. Rather, outlying opinions are simply viewed as unserious, beyond the pale, even unthinkable, so they are rarely considered.
Promiscuous interventionists also point out that they do not bomb and invade everywhere. Brands, et al. cheerfully noted that Washington eschewed “interventions in Rwanda, the African Great Lakes, Sudan, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Myanmar and other potential cases.” The Rand Corporation’s Michael Mazarr made a related claim: “Broadly speaking, then, the default setting of U.S. foreign policy is hardly one of fervent interventionism. In terms of actual military policies and spending, if the United States had truly embraced hegemonic policies, there would be a trajectory of continually rising commitments, military spending, and interventions since 1945.”
These arguments fall short. The U.S. is dramatically, even shockingly, outside of the international mainstream. Great power conflict was a constant prior to World War I and still common afterwards. Today it is extraordinarily rare—except by America. The U.S. is far more warlike than any other nation. Washington uses the military more often than its most noted authoritarian adversaries combined: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and any other plausible candidates.
As for the cases cited by Brands, et al., Washington continues to back Kiev with lethal military aid and through sanctions on Russia and insist that Ukraine (and Georgia) eventually be admitted to NATO. In Myanmar policymakers debated coercive intervention in the aftermath of a devastating typhoon. After Rwanda a number of U.S. officials, including President Bill Clinton, indicated that they wished they had responded militarily. The U.S. put devastating financial sanctions on Sudan and kept them in place even after Khartoum allowed the secession of what became South Sudan.
Mazarr ignored the fact that shortly after 1945 the U.S. established the most important alliances with the most important countries, which persist to this day, setting an interventionist agenda for decades. Moreover, Washington dramatically expanded NATO after the alliance’s chief enemy had imploded. Modest military retrenchment came only after the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had disappeared and Europeans had radically cut back their militaries. The failure of Washington to drop a single alliance or security guarantee in an increasingly benign security environment—the world might seem dangerous, but not for the globe’s hyperpower—testifies to the strength of the Blob’s determination to dominate the globe.
Moreover, the rate of intervention has been increasing. According to Monica Duffy Toft of Tufts, the U.S. used military force 46 times between 1948 and 1991 and 188 times between 1992 and 2017. If Washington policymakers were restrained before, it was primarily due to the Cold War, which focused U.S. attention on serious security concerns. Moreover, interventions which went awry could escalate into a U.S.-Soviet confrontation with potentially catastrophic consequences. Any supposed “moderation” and “pragmatism” claimed by the Blob’s defenders ended along with the Cold War.
Nor does the fact that Blob members lean toward intervention mean they are entirely bereft of any sense of limits, especially regarding public support. The failure to act in every possible circumstance does not mean intervention is not promiscuous. After all, America has been constantly at war, mostly for no obvious benefit, for the last two decades. And there is no sign that these wars will end anytime soon, despite Biden’s anemic promises to do so.
Perhaps the most dubious claim is that “the nation gets the opportunity to learn from its mistakes, build on its successes, and improve its performance over time.” Where? Certainly not in the Middle East, the epicenter of intervention over the last two decades; none of the interventions since 2001 look successful or worthwhile. Attempts to lead from behind (Libya), back allied wars (Yemen), and rely on a mix of tools (Syria) have done little better than invading.
Yet what member of the Blob has been held accountable for his or her failures? Who has lost anything professionally? Which failed policy analyst has been denied media attention? And who does not remain a respected member of the Blob irrespective of how many people have been murdered, raped, injured, and displaced as a result of policies he or she advocated? Certainly, the new president and his top aides remain undisturbed, despite sharing responsibility for every conflict in which America remains ensnared.
Without question the Blob dominates U.S. foreign policy. And intervention dominates the foreign policy promoted by the Blob. That doesn’t mean there is no opposition and that no dissident voices are heard. However, there has been an extraordinary consistency in the post-Cold War foreign policies—Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and even Trump—which almost certainly will continue through the incoming Biden administration.
Nor is there any presidential candidate on the horizon for 2024 who seems likely to diverge in any serious way from the ongoing establishment consensus. Nothing is likely to change. Until then, Americans and foreigners will continue paying a high price in lives and money as the Blob simply moves on to its next disastrous war, certain that even grotesque failure will not threaten its policy-making primacy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.
Read more:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-blob-is-addicted-to-overseas-interventions/
- By Gus Leonisky at 26 Jan 2021 - 5:56pm
- Gus Leonisky's blog
- Login or register to post comments
bushit senior's deceit...
“THE ART OF WAR”
Thirty years ago, the Gulf War
by Manlio Dinucci
For President George H. Bush, the aim of Operation Desert Storm was not so much to defeat Iraq as to establish a "New World Order", in agreement with the last President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. It was about acknowledging the agony of the USSR and creating a world governed by the USA while guaranteeing the Soviets respect for their interests.
Thirty years ago, at dawn on January 17, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began in the Persian Gulf, the war against Iraq that opened the sequence of the post-Cold War wars. It was launched by the United States and its allies at a time when, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself were dissolving. This created an entirely new geopolitical situation, and the drew up a new strategy to take full advantage of it.
In the 1980s the US supported President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s war against Iran. But when this war ended in 1988, the US feared that Iraq would acquire a pre-eminent role in the region. So they once again pursued a policy of "divide and rule". They pushed Kuwait to demand the immediate repayment of the credit granted to Iraq and to harm it by exploiting the oil field underneath the two territories.
Washington led Baghdad to believe that the US would remain neutral in the conflict between the two countries; but when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in July 1990, Washington formed an international coalition against Iraq. A force of 750,000 soldiers, 70% of whom were American, under the command of American General Norman Schwarzkopf, was sent to the Gulf. For 43 days, starting on January 17, the US and allied air force, with 2,800 aircraft, carries out more than 110,000 sorties, dropping 250,000 bombs, including cluster bombs that released more than 10,000,000 submunitions. Alongside the United States, British, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Canadian, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and British naval and air forces took part in the bombing. On February 23rd the coalition troops, comprising more than half a million soldiers, launched the land offensive. It ended on February 28 with a "temporary ceasefire" proclaimed by President George H. Bush (the father).
Immediately after the Gulf War, Washington sent an unequivocal message to its opponents and allies: "The United States remains the only state with truly global political, economic and military strength, reach and influence in any dimension. There is no substitute for American leadership" (US National Security Strategy, August 1991).
The Gulf War was the first war in which the Italian Republic participated under US command, violating Article 11 of its Constitution. NATO, although not officially participating as such, made its forces and bases available. A few months later, in November 1991, the Atlantic Council launched the "new Alliance Strategic Concept" in the wake of the new US strategy. In the same year in Italy, the "new defence model" was launched which, overturning the Constitution, stated that the mission of the armed forces was to "protect national interests wherever necessary".
Thus the Gulf War gave rise to the strategy that guided the successive wars under US command - Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011 and others - presented as "humanitarian operations to export democracy". The millions of deaths, invalids, orphans and refugees caused by the Gulf War, which in August 1991 President Bush Sr. described as the "crucible of the New World Order", are testimony to the truth. In addition to these, one and a half million deaths, including half a million children, were caused in Iraq by the 12 years of embargo that followed, plus many more due to the long-term effects of the depleted uranium projectiles used massively in the war. And after that of the embargo, the new one caused by the second war against Iraq launched in 2003.
Thousands of billions of dollars spent on the war would be burned in this same "crucible": for the second Iraq war alone, the Congressional Budget Office estimates long-term US spending at around $2 trillion.
All of this should be borne in mind when, shortly, some people in the mainstream media recall the thirtieth anniversary of the Gulf War, "the crucible of the New World Order".
Manlio Dinucci
Translation
Roger Lagassé
Source
Il Manifesto (Italy)
Read more:
https://www.voltairenet.org/article211990.html
a step in the right direction...
Earlier in the day, a Bloomberg defense reporter said that the Biden administration would temporarily pause some US foreign arms sales, particularly putting under review the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia and of Lockheed Martin F-35 jets to the UAE.
A US State Department spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday that the Biden cabinet would pause some US foreign arms sales for what it described as a "routine" review.
“The Department is temporarily pausing the implementation of some pending US defense transfers and sales under Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review,” the official told Sputnik via email.According to the official, the review is a “a routine administrative action typical to most any transition" that demonstrates “our strategic objectives of building stronger, interoperable, and more capable security partners".
It was not specified which deals would be put on pause, but the Bloomberg defense reporter said earlier in the day that contracts to sell F-35 Lockeed Martin jets to the UAE and weapons to Saudi Arabia were among them.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the US particularly wants to ensure that American weapons are not used to "further the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen".
Earlier in 2020, Reuters reported that the United Arab Emirates had inked a deal with the US to purchase 50 F-35 jets and up to 18 armed drones, after long expressing interest in obtaining American weapons before Washington promised Abu Dhabi to sell arms if the UAE normalized ties with Israel.
US Arms Sales to the UAE After Abraham AccordsBefore Abu Dhabi normalized relations with Israel in September 2020, Tel Aviv objected to the UAE purchasing weapons from the US.
After the so-called Abraham Accords were signed, Israel has agreed to allow Washington to sell "certain weapons", given that Tel Aviv's "qualitative military edge" in the region is secured.
"The prime minister and defense minister both agree that since the US is upgrading Israel's military capability and is maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, Israel will not oppose the sale of these systems to the UAE", the statement from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz said at the time, after Gantz and former US Defense Secretary Mark Esper signed the agreement that removed Israel's objection to the transfer of weapons to the UAE.The Trump administration said at the time that the US military sales to the UAE were “enabling the UAE to deter" what the White House believed to be "increasing Iranian aggressive behavior and threats”, as some US lawmakers criticised the UAE for participating in Yemen conflict.
Read more:
https://sputniknews.com/us/202101271081898672-state-dept-confirms-biden-temporarily-halts-some-us-foreign-arms-sales/
Read from top.
on the right track...
REALISM & RESTRAINT
Finally Ending The Despicable U.S.-Saudi Alliance
Trump's friendliness to the murderous regime was indefensible. Joe Biden should quickly change our course.
Perhaps no one watched November’s election returns more closely than did Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince. The Trump administration had spent four years helping him oppress his people and ravage his neighbors
President Donald Trump exulted “I saved his ass,” as if protecting a murderer from punishment was worth celebrating. MbS naturally hoped for four more years.
However, President Joe Biden is now in charge, and he called the Kingdom’s de facto ruler a “pariah” who was killing “innocent people.” The Biden administration is filled with officials who worked for President Barack Obama and regret giving Riyadh a blank check for its brutal war of aggression against Yemen. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Biden “has made clear that we will end our support for the military campaign led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and I think we will work on that in very short order.” Today would not be soon enough.
In response, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is putting on a confident public face. For instance, Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan declared: “We are optimistic of having excellent ties with the U.S. under a Biden administration.” In a desperate resort to flattery, he also complimented the new president on his appointees, observing that they shared an “understanding of the common issues.”
Moreover, the crown prince temporarily dropped his swaggering arrogance hoping to placate the new occupant of the White House. The Wall Street Journal, a fan of the brutal, corrupt royals, argued approvingly that Riyadh—which has promoted murder and mayhem throughout the region—“is making concessions to improve stability in its neighborhood.”
For instance, last month Loujain al-Hathloul was sentenced to nearly six years in prison, but the regime-controlled court suspended two years of the sentence; given time served, she will be released soon. MbS had earned global opprobrium for arresting her for campaigning against the Kingdom’s ban on women driving (since lifted). National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called her imprisonment “unjust and troubling.” Al-Hathloul’s most serious offense apparently was working with foreign human rights groups, which sullied the regime’s reputation.
Read more:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/finally-ending-the-despicable-u-s-saudi-alliance/
Read from top.
See also:
sunni side up...joe's dogs of war...
by Joseph R. Biden Jr.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | WASHINGTON D. C. (ÉTATS-UNIS) | 11 FEBRUARY 2021
Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you. And good afternoon to everyone. I want to thank Secretary Austin for welcoming the Vice President and me to the Pentagon today. It’s good to be back.
Before I begin, I have some welcome news that the Saudi government has released a prominent human rights activist, Loujain al-Hathlou — -loul — excuse me, l-o-u-l — from prison. She’s a powerful advocate women’s rights, and releasing her was the right thing to do.
It’s been a busy day. Earlier, I announced steps we’ve taken to impose costs on those responsible for the military coup in Burma. And I’ve just concluded a briefing with the civilian and military leadership where I laid out my national security priorities. And I want to share the message directly with the Department of Defense staff all around the world. Because each of you — each of you — whether you’re newly enlisted, a career officer, a non-commissioned officer, or a civilian policy expert, you’re essential to how we project our strength around the world, defend America’s interests, and advance American leadership in the world.
So often, our Armed Forces and the Department of Defense staff are how the rest of the world encounters America. And you all know as well as anyone that our country is safer and stronger when we lead not just with the example of our power, but with the power of our example.
As your Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to use force to defend the vital interests of the American people and our allies around the world when necessary. The central, indispensable mission of the Department of Defense is to deter aggression from our enemies and, if required, to fight and win wars to keep America safe.
But I believe force should be a tool of last resort, not first. I understand the full weight of what it means to ask young, proud Americans to stand in the breach. As was referenced by the Secretary, my son Beau served in Iraq for a year. I’m the first President in 40 years, I’m told, who had a son or daughter who served in a warzone.
So I know what it’s like. Being Commander-in-Chief is an enormous responsibility and one that I will never take lightly or easily.
I will work with Secretary Austin and leaders around the world to bring a responsible end — a responsible end to wars that have dragged on for far too long, while continuing to ensure that terrorist threats cannot endanger the security of the American people.
I also know that you are essential to the work of our diplomacy — not only as the ultimate guarantor of our security, but as diplomats yourselves.
I got to know Secretary Austin when he was serving as commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq. It wasn’t just his excellent military leadership the many times I met him there, and his strategy; he was a consummate diplomat as well. He worked closely with our ambassador to build relationships with both civilian and military leaders of our coalition partners. Because we are better able to project our power when we’re amplifying our strength through our alliances, it was so important.
There is no aspect of our agenda of the 21st century leadership where the women and men of the Defense Department do not have a role — whether it’s helping curb the pandemic here at home and around the world; or addressing the real threats of climate change that already is costing us billions in impacts on our bases, on our national security; or being part of an ongoing fight for racial justice.
You are essential to how we must rethink and reprioritize our security to meet the challenges of this century, not the last.
We need to take on the dangers and opportunities of emerging technologies, enhance our capabilities in cyberspace, ensure that we are positioned to lead in a new era of competition, from deep sea to outer space. And we need to meet the growing challenges posed by China to keep the peace and defend our interests in the Indo-Pacific and globally.
Today, I was briefed on a new DOD-wide China task force that Secretary Austin is standing up to look at our strategy and operational concepts, technology, and force posture, and so much more.
The task force will work quickly, drawing on civilian and military experts across the Department, to provide, within the next few months, recommendations to Senator [Secretary] Austin on key priorities and decision points so that we can chart a strong path forward on China-related matters. It will require a whole-of-government effort, bipartisan cooperation in Congress, and strong alliances and partnerships.
That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition of the future.
You know, to the incredible individuals who serve in our Armed Forces: You are unquestionably part of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. You’re warriors. The work you do each and every day is vital to ensuring the American people — your families, friends, and loved ones — are able to live in peace and security and growing prosperity.
And for those of you who raise your hands and sign up to wear the uniform of the United States: We owe you an incredible debt.
I’ve said for many years, less than one percent of Americans do what you do: put yourself on the line for the rest of the 99 percent of the Americans you represent. The 99 percent of us owe you. We owe it to you to keep the faith with our sacred obligation to properly prepare and equip you when we send you into harm’s way, and to care for you and your families, both while you are deployed and after you return home.
You’re incredible heroes and incredible patriots. I will never, ever dishonest you — dishonor you. I will never disrespect you. I will never politicize the work you do. That goes for our civilian professionals as well as the career military.
As I’ve said, this is personal for me. The Biden family is a military family. We learned firsthand some of what your loved ones experienced when Beau was deployed to Iraq for a year with his unit in the Delaware National Guard. We dealt with the stress of his absence and the daily joys — from the daily joys of life. And we worried constantly about his safe return. We felt overwhelming pride in his courage and his patriotism.
You are all the best our country has to offer. You live by a creed of selfless sacrifice. And for many of you, the journey to service has not been easy.
February is Black History Month, as the Vice President pointed out. Before we leave today, Vice President Harris and I are going to visit the hall honoring the long history of black Americans fighting for this country, even when their contributions were not always recognized or honored appropriately.
But those contributions have nevertheless helped push our country toward greater equality. From the bravery of the free and enslaved descendants of Africans who fought with the colonial forces in our revolution; to the black regiments that joined to fight for the Union and for their own freedom in the Civil War; to the Buffalo soldiers, including Henry O. Flipper, the first African American graduate of West Point; and Cathay Williams, the first African American woman — Cathay — who enlisted in the United States Army.
Imagine the incredible love it must have taken for the proud Tuskegee Airmen to fly more than 15,000 sorties in battle, when their own freedom was not fully realized in their own country.
Imagine the determination of Roscoe Robinson, who started at West Point one year before Harry Truman issued the order to officially desegregate the Armed Forces, and who rose to become the first African American four-star general.
Imagine the bravery of the 22 African Americans awarded the Medal of Honor for their service in the Vietnam War while struggling for civil rights at home was continuing.
It’s all part of a long history of barrier-breaking service.
Right now, more than 40 percent of our active-duty forces are people of color. And it’s long past time that the full diversity and full strength of our force is reflected at every level of this Department, including our Secretary of Defense.
This organization thrives and succeeds because of our people. So the final point I’d like to make today is to give you my personal commitment that this administration — from myself and the Vice President Harris to Secretary Austin on down — is dedicated to ensuring that every single person is treated with dignity and respect.
That’s why we moved so quickly to overturn the discriminary — discriminatory ban on transgender service, and why General Austin’s first memo was a directive to take sexual assault in the military seriously.
Every single person, no matter their gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or religious background, deserves to feel safe in the ranks and to have their contributions valued.
It’s on all of us to stand up, to speak out when you see someone being abused. This is an organization that’s defined American — excuse me, defeated American enemies on land, sea, and air, and been defined by the way we treat others.
So I know this is not beyond us, not if each of us makes this a priority as well.
So, thank you for welcoming us, Secretary Austin. It’s good to be back in the Pentagon. I wish I could meet more of you in person today, but I look forward to spending more time with you in all the places you serve around the world.
I know this is the honor of my lifetime. The honor of my lifetime is to serve as your Commander-in-Chief.
Thank you for what you do for this country. May God bless you and protect you, and may God protect our troops deployed around the world, every single one of you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Joseph R. Biden JrRead more:
https://www.voltairenet.org/article212194.html
meanwhile, the israeli dogs...
Israeli jets rained down missiles near Damascus from the occupied Golan Heights and Israel’s northern Galilee region in the early hours of Monday, Syria’s SANA news agency reported. The Syrian military said that its air defenses intercepted most of the missiles.
Read more:
https://www.rt.com/news/515573-syria-israel-missile-agression/
At this stage, the Israelis act with impunity because they know that should there be some retaliation from Syria and Iran, the US would come and bomb Damascus and Iran into oblivion, while the Russians would have to weight the possibility of escalating the reply without being hit for six by a demented Pentagon. So, prepare yourself and your trousers, for some hypocrisy from the God/peace loving warrior, Joe R Biden... and of course a pile of crap from the "liberal" and "conservative" media...
See also: brown nosing a bit too much... in putin's motorbike gangs...
and:
our father, which art in heaven...more US troops where they should not be...
According to the Voice of America, the Biden administration has decided to build a new military base in Northern occupied Syria [1].
On 6 February 2021, around fifty trucks arrived in Hassakah loaded with construction equipment.
During Trump’s tenure, the White House had thrice ordered the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria, where they were stationed illegally. The Pentagon and the CIA in collusion with the President’s envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, then requested it be delayed, and later claimed they had to leave some troops to forestall the return of IS fighters. In reality, Kurdish mercenaries were running the oil wells together with a US company. The profits were being split between these mercenaries on the one hand and the CIA slush fund on the other. This made it possible for the Agency to finance covert operations in other parts of the world without congressional scrutiny.
Today, the Biden administration is strengthening the US military presence in Syria, contravening international law and United Nations resolutions. It intends both to put pressure on Russia and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in order to revive the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy: the endless wars started in the enlarged Middle East by presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which were interrupted by the Trump administration.
Newly appointed Secretary of Defense, General Lloyd Austin, had already been in charge of overseeing all the wars in the wider Middle East — including the one in Syria — at the end of Barack Obama’s term. He is the one who set up a $ 500 million program to train the Syrian "rebels". As it turned out, he found no rebels and only trained "four or five" soldiers as he himself reported to the Senate.
Read more:
https://www.voltairenet.org/article212207.html
Read from top
Joe Biden is moving according to our predictions... He will end up a bastard Catholic Nazi for the rest of the world... The "liberal" and some CONservative media will love him for this... Meanwhile, Julian ASSANGE, the symbol of the "free-press", REMAINS IN PRISON for telling the truth...
aggressive biden shows rabid teeth...
In his first major foreign policy speech, the newly elected US president made it clear that the era of US’ traditional interventionist and confrontationist policy is going to take over Donald Trump’s “America First”, a controversial policy that emphasized economic nationalism and a reduced US involvement in conflicts. In his last speech as president, Trump took a lot of pride in the fact that he is the first president in last many decades who completed his tenure without starting a new war. Biden’s approach, however, shows that US interventionism and the bid to re-establish US supremacy are going to be the new cornerstones of US global politics. Anti-China and anti-Russia elements within the US establishment see Trump’s “America First” as one primary reason that allowed US rivals to take advantage of US political retreat and project themselves in many crucial regions including the Middle East and Europe, which were under US exclusive influence until a few years ago. Therefore, the foremost goal of the Joe Biden administration is going to be reclaiming the lost US supremacy. As it stands, the new administration is already projecting this policy without mincing any words, calling it a ‘great reset.’
Biden’s speech was unambiguous when he addressed Russia, saying,
“I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens — are over. We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people. And we will be more effective in dealing with Russia when we work in coalition and coordination with other like-minded partners.”
Outlining his confrontation with China, Biden said,
“And we’ll also take on directly the challenges posed by our prosperity, security, and democratic values by our most serious competitor, China. We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.”
Of course, these “warnings” are a part of Biden’s policy to re-build American supremacy. As he said,
“It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged. But that’s precisely what we’re going to do.”
The Joe Biden administration, as it stands, is being facilitated by the presence of hawks in the broader US-led defense establishment including NATO. A recent paper written by an anonymous author for the NATO-funded think-tank, The Atlantic Council, said that “The single most important challenge facing the United States and the democratic world in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive China under Xi Jinping.” What the US needs to do is, the author argues, compel China’s “ruling elites to conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue operating within the US-led liberal international order rather than building a rival order, and that it is in the Chinese Communist Party’s best interests to not attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.”
This policy stands in complete contrast to what China’s Xi had only recently said in his World Economic Forum speech. To quote him, “To build small circles or start a new Cold War, to reject, threaten or intimidate others, to willfully impose decoupling, supply disruptions or sanctions, and to create isolation or estrangement will only push the world into division and even confrontation,” Xi stressed, adding that,“We cannot tackle common challenges in a divided world, and confrontation will lead us to a dead end.”
Russia’s Putin in his address to the same forum outlined an identical approach, signifying how a de-facto Russia-China alliance exists with a primary aim to counter US unilateralism and supremacy.
Putin clearly foresaw Biden’s approach when he said, “We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres. Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force.”
Pre-empting Biden’s aggressive drive towards US unilateralism, Putin pointed out, “… the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.”
While the win-win and multipolar vision given by Russia-China shows their resolve to resist US unilateralism and build a more inclusive global political system, it also underscores the fact that the centre of global political and economic gravity has significantly shifted to Asia. An increasing number of countries are subscribing to the logic of win-win, rejecting the zero-sum competition that hawks in the US espouse, cherish and aim to impose on the whole world.
A “war of narratives”, with win-win and zero-sum competition as its two faces, has therefore begun with full force.
And, in this war, the US is not just resisting China and Russia; it is primarily resisting its own inevitable downfall both internally and externally. The events leading to the virtual occupation of the US Congress by Trump’s supporters signifies how the US democracy, internally divided and deeply polarized between the so-called liberals and white supremacists, is no longer a “role model” for the rest of the world. On the external front, China and Russia signify how a US led global economic system is not the only path to global salvation.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Read more:
https://journal-neo.org/2021/02/18/biden-s-interventionism-meets-russia-china-multilateralism/
Read from top.
See also:
growth of USA and Europe... in reviving the european ideal...
back to annoy the rest of the world...FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!
joe did not last long off the booze of war...
“At President Biden’s direction US military forces earlier this evening conducted airstrikes against infrastructure utilized by Iranian backed militant groups in eastern Syria,” the Pentagon’s spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. The attack took place around 6 pm Eastern time on Thursday.
Statement from PentagonPresSec on airstrikes conducted tonight by U.S. military forces against infrastructure utilized by Iranian-backed militant groups in eastern Syria.
— Brett McGurk (brett_mcgurk) February 26, 2021
Kirby echoed earlier media reports that the bombing of the Syrian territory was in retaliation to “recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq.” He further argued that the raids were aimed at defusing the tensions in the Middle East.
At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in both Eastern Syria and Iraq.
Kirby claimed that the strikes inflicted serious damage on the infrastructure of “a number of Iranian backed militant groups including Kait’ib Hezbollah and Kait’ib Sayyid al Shuhad,” noting that “multiple facilities”were destroyed.
Unconfirmed reports from Syria spoke of explosions near Al-Bukamal, a town in the Deir-ez-Zor province near the border with Iraq.
The reported airstrikes come after a series of rocket attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad, the Balad Air Base and the Erbil International Airport in Iraq over the past two weeks. No group has claimed responsibility and the Pentagon has not officially blamed anyone.
Read more:
https://www.rt.com/news/516611-syria-us-airstrike-retaliation/
Read from top.
So Biden the Catholic is also a killer... He might have to go to confession. We know the Democrats and the Republicans will give him an A+ for bombin' sumpthin'...
Yes it's Bomber Biden...
Go away, you f^%$*& idiot! See also:
anyone for world title biffo?preparing the next biffo...
By Finian Cunningham
US President Joe Biden this weekend warned Iran that “other options” will be used if the failed nuclear deal is not restored through diplomacy.
In American official parlance, “other options” is a polite way of threatening to use military force.
The threat is all the more sinister given that Biden uttered the words while sitting beside Israeli premier Naftali Bennett in the White House. Israel has repeatedly vowed to launch military strikes on Iran even if the United States signs up again to a nuclear accord with Tehran.
That’s the nuclear treaty signed in 2015 by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia along with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) imposed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear industry preventing weaponization. In return, harsh international economic sanctions would supposedly be lifted off Iran.
It was the United States under Trump that walked away from the legally binding deal in 2018 and reimposed crippling sanctions on Iran. European weakness in deferring to American sanctions forced the Iranians into partially revoking their commitment to nuclear restrictions by increasing stockpiles of enriched uranium, the metallic substance used for nuclear weapons. Not that Iran has got anywhere near the level of enriched uranium required for making a bomb. And in any case, Iran has consistently disavowed the intention to obtain nuclear weapons.
During his 2020 campaign for the presidency against Trump, Biden promised to return the US to the international nuclear deal with Iran. Nine months into his presidency, there is no sign of Biden delivering on his promise. Multiple rounds of negotiations in Vienna have gone nowhere because the Biden administration insists that Iran must make the first concession of full compliance in nuclear activities.
Tehran says the onus is on the US to first lift its sanctions to restore the nuclear deal.
The Biden administration has shown no willingness to reverse the harsh economic measures imposed by Trump.
Furthermore, the Biden White House is continuing the unprecedented demands that any new nuclear deal must have add-on restrictions against Iran’s conventional missile defenses. That’s like buying a car, then bringing it back to demand upgraded upholstery, alloy wheels, and so on.
The American bad faith here is stupendous. They unilaterally pulled out of an international treaty that was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council; they reimpose illegal sanctions that amount to economic warfare; and Biden not only backtracks on election promises, but he also wants to rewrite a deal that Washington signed up to six years ago.
On top of all that brazen skulduggery, the US president threatens to make war on Iran if it doesn’t sign up to American demands, which he characterizes as “diplomacy”. All this while sitting beside the leader of a country – Israel – which has an illegal stockpile of up to 300 nuclear missiles and which threatens Iran all the time.
You could not make this American absurdity up. Even more farcical and heinous, Biden is threatening war – which in itself is a crime of aggression under international law – in the same week that the United States is finally retreating from Afghanistan in the disgraceful defeat of its 20-year illegal military occupation of that country.
You would think that maybe, just maybe, after such a diabolical debacle of military futility and orgy of crimes against humanity, the US leaders might have a little pause or shame. Not the Americans. Even in the jaws of catastrophic defeat, they are contemplating their next war.
Washington’s record of waging wars around the planet is as fiendish as it is futile. How many wars, how many defeats, how many deaths? You would think a nation that spends over $700 billion a year on its military – more than 10 times that of Russia – might just win at least one war. The monumental failure of US militarism is astounding and yet that fact is barely mentioned in Western media – that’s the power of propaganda for you.
But winning wars is not the real purpose. US militarism – or if you like state terrorism – is central to propping up its atrophied capitalist economy and enriching the elite. In that very narrow definition, then arguably American warmongering has succeeded. For a time.
Though, ultimately, it is unsustainable and heralds the coming collapse of American society and what remains of its global power.
As Biden’s criminal and insane threats to Iran make plain, Washington doesn’t practice diplomacy. Its so-called “foreign policy” and “rules-based order” is Orwellian rhetoric to hide the blunt truth.
US policy equals war.
Read more:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202108291083745205-us-foreign-policy--war/
Read from top.
See also:
learning nothing from the pectoralis muscles of history...