Could Dotard Get Us Into A Nuclear War With Russia After The FBI Raid On His Scumball Lawyer?

"We haven’t been in a safe space since Nov. 8, 2016, but we’re in especially dangerous territory now. President Trump seems closer than ever to decisions that could plunge the country into crisis. And there’s nothing in his bearing or behavior to suggest that he cares all that much about sparing America that chaos and pain."  Frank Bruni, 'Trump Seethes And The Rest Of Us Should Tremble', NY Times

Many pundits tonight are asking the question posed in the header, given Trump is now feeling the "hangman's noose" tightening ever more snugly around his fat, orange neck. This after the office and home of his scumball lawyer (Michael Cohen) was raided by the FBI earlier today.  After he learned about it he ranted on in the White House for a solid nine minutes even ruminating that he "might have to see about doing something with Mueller".   No, you degenerate turd, that would be a very bad idea, if you recall Nixon trying the same thing (in the "Saturday Night massacre")

Besides, Trump is barking out of his fat ass. It wasn't Mueller who executed the warrants on Cohen, it was the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York, a REPUBLICAN! The warrants were also approved by a federal judge and higher ups in the Dept. Of Justice. (All Republicans.)

But this is how a crazed, cornered rat behaves and speaks including the fulsome, hyper balderdash spouted that the FBI "broke into"  Cohen's office. No they did not, asswipe. They merely fulfilled the execution of a lawful search warrant.  The physical intervention, as opposed to merely issuing a placid subpoena, was because there's either a time limit on the evidence or belief in the possibility of destruction of evidence..

Doturd also yelped - like the fascist authoritarian he is - that this was "an attack on the country". No, again, Mr. Resident, it was a lawful exercise designed to seize key evidence from a single scumball (sharing your degenerate personality) before it could be destroyed.  Do not, I repeat, do not, conflate the country  with you and your lackey rat Cohen.  As NY Times columnist Frank Bruni put it:

"’A lawful raid on his attorney's office and hotel room is what prompted the president to use those immensely weighted words. They’re a signal — make that a siren — of how cornered he feels, how monstrously large his belief in his own persecution has grown and what a dangerous situation America is in.."

Indeed, the talk among panelists appearing on 'All In' this evening is the extent to which the raid on Cohen will impact Trump's decision making in terms of a possible military strike on Assad's or Putin's forces, given a chemical (likely chlorine) attack that killed at least 40 Syrians.   The consensus is that a Dotard under severe pressure will not think the response through and could very well act precipitously.    As one panelist put it: "This is a most dangerous time. I would be very afraid."

As I noted before, a megalomaniacal narcissist  like Trump - to preserve himself - could easily start a war to blow up everything and everyone, to preserve himself, in his own perverted mind.

In the book, 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump' clinical psychologist  Michael J. Tansey informs us (p. 121):

"Although there are several areas in which DT's particular version of personality disorder is vital to understand, none is more compelling or terrifying than his control of the nuclear codes.  Surpassing the devastation of climate, health care, education, diplomacy, social services, freedom of speech, and liberty and justice for all, nothing is more incomprehensible than the now plausible prospect of an all -out nuclear war."

Adding (ibid.):

"Because of this very real existential threat, it is absolutely urgent that we comprehend the titanic differences between a president who is merely 'crazy like a fox' versus one I have termed crazy like crazy (possessing core grandiose and paranoid delusions disconnected from factual reality."

The evidence Dotard is literally crazy like crazy is abundant and as Chris Hayes' panelists put it, "never crazier than when he is under pressure" - meaning the risk of compromised decision making is at maximum after the FBI raid on Cohen. While a normal mind might be able to sequester its emotions, e.g.  in reaction to the FBI raids and the Mueller investigation,  from a response to the Syrian chemical attack, this is something of which Trump is incapable.  This is given at such moments he literally has the mentality of a psychopathic toddler- so all emotions become intermixed with potential disastrous results.  Worse, his overwhelming instinct to overreact is now going to be reinforced by another psychopath, John Bolton, recently appointed as national security adviser.

It is true that Trump also launched a cruise missile strike  last year (April 7) after a nerve agent attack by Assad,  But now, one year later, there are hundreds more Russian troops as well as dozens of Russian jet fighters which - if hit, even accidentally- could set off a conflagration.   Given Trump lacks the decision making capacity to respond in any rational and balanced way, every manjack on the planet ought to be afraid. Given the extent to which the FBI raid is clearly messing with his brain, we ought to be damned well terrified- given those raw emotions could well spill over into a Syrian response decision..

This is especially after the departure of the few remaining  adults that had been keeping the giant orange hued toddler's Id at bay. But which now stands to be released under pressure, with even the two remaining generals (Kelly and Mattis)  reduced to  muted stage props.

Let us all hope the asshole in the White House, this illegitimate traitor,  doesn't do anything reckless that could have far greater consequencies than just a few dozen killed.  A most inauspicious sign was one of Trump's first tweets after learning that a Russian Defense Minister vowed counter strikes on U.S. and other aircraft carriers and other "sources of launch":

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/cody-fenwick/78594/heres-why-the-fbi-raided-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-offices

McCain Tries to Best Putin – Ends Up Looking Like An American Yahoo Idiot

Here’s a cautionary note to any would be ‘Murican word warriors hoping to get even with Vladimir Putin for his recent NY Times Op-ed or any other “uppity furriners” in the future - i.e. those who may appear in American media : Look before you leap, or rather, think long and hard before you withdraw your word sabers from your scabbards to attack somebody – without first protecting your flanks. It seems Johnno McCain never learned that lesson.

Recall that on September 11th, in The New York Times, there appeared an op –ed by Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia”. This concerned the matter of Syria and American claims to “exceptionalism” that warranted barging in there and starting a war by firing cruise missiles - likely killing many innocents ("collateral damage") along with bystander Russian technicians. Contrary to the American Neo-liberal pro-war for capital crowd, Putin delivered a sober and rational plea for caution to the sole remaining superpower to think before acting again like a rogue. Yesterday, John McCain responded with an Op Ed of his own today in the Russian Publication PRAVDA, entitled “Russians deserve better than Putin”, which appeared on the Pravda.ru website.

Whereas Putin sought to objectively address the Syrian conflict and the potential dangers that it holds, McCain simply resorted to typical American ad hominem, making the subject of his forlorn piece Putin himself, with disastrous results. According to a number of observers, McCain’s pathetic effort to get even “probably constitutes one of the most embarrassing statements made by an American politician to be published internationally in the last 25 years. "

One need only read some of the comments in the wake of his “rebuttal” to see how much influence Johnny Madman had in influencing his intended audience.

Quote:

Timothy John Bancroft-Hinchey в 11:52 19 сентября

“Never in my 30-plus years in journalism have I seen such a blatant display of arrogance, ignorance and insolence, What a difference between President Putin's polite message in the NYT and this... words fail me... What a difference between President Putin and Senator McCain. Well, one was democratically elected as President more than once and the other didn't have what it takes. So, Senator McCain is not big enough to live up to his failure as a human being and as a politician.”

Robert Rosser в 14:58 19 сентября

Thank you, Mr. Bancroft-Hinchey. You have captured my response to McCain's letter in very few words. So I'll endorse your post instead of posting my own 400-word rant. I simply note, in addition, that if "US Leadership" were substituted for "Russia/Putin" in McCain's letter, it would have considerable truth and merit. Words do not fail you, sir. "Arrogance, ignorance and insolence" are right on target. Thank you.

Olga Voroshilova в 14:56 19 сентября

Speaking about the "regime which misrules" Russians today. Does Mr. McCain have any proof that Russian President and Government weren't elected lawfully? No? I suspect he has the same "proof" Obama has got for Assad's usage of chemical weapons in Syria.

adani kalombi в 13:27 19 сентября

america is ruled by the law of big corporate ,,, lobbying+campaign = bribery, corruptions... john mcCain is jealous the success A to Z of russia , it's all about the american greed god bless Russia

Altyn Sultan в 15:26 19 сентября

Putin runs for the US Office, McCain runs for the one in Russia. who get's what - wanna guess?

Yury Panikov в 15:23 19 сентября

To American commentators: Thank you for your support, we in Russia do understand that McCain (as many current American politicians) is frankly speaking like an idiot. The only problem we see, that he is empowered idiot.

Andrew Kirikov в 11:15 19 сентября

if old anti-russian McCain criticises Putin and our government then Putin and the government are moving in the correct direction

Ruchkin Vladimir в 16:49 19 сентября

Thank you, Senator McCain, for your article! You dispelled the last doubts about the viability of the American establishment. The mood has improved.

Milo Hoffman в 11:38 19 сентября

I'm russian. And I can assure you he's saying complete bullshit. He's saying about an absence of freedom of word in Russia and neverthless he writes anti-russian propaganda in *russian* media.

Costantino Ceoldo в 12:35 19 сентября

Of course, Senator McCain is firmly convinced that 9/11 was made by someone in a Afghan cavern... We know that in US everything goes fine: law, job, food... There, people help each other and every day some little cute cats meow to you in the morning. No mafia in US, nor banksters corruption. If someone dies, it's because he puts himself in the line of a free fire, permitted by some constitutional amendment. American cops are gentlemen who shoot only one cartridge per time in the body of a suspect and never, never!, they beat a prisoner. Well... I wake up... it's coffee time!

Out of the mouths of “furriners”. Oh wait, they aren’t! They’re writing in the banner publication of their own country in reply to a certifiable American nutcase, who doesn’t know when to quit when he’s ahead. Maybe it's past time McCain, along with many of his current GOP peers - trying to shut down the government again- read the Constitution. It seems to me that it's their over exaggeration of THEIR rights that is in large measure responsible for turning this nation into some parody of its former self - when words like "liberty", "justice", and the "general welfare" really had meaning. Maybe he and his fellow pols need to process that before they launch into jeremiads of how other countries ought to conduct their affairs!

Guest Blog: The American People Have Spoken: No More War Abroad, More Jobs at Home

By Bernie Sanders

At a time of great political division in our country President Obama has found a remarkable way to unite Americans of all political persuasions -- conservatives, progressives and moderates. With a loud and clear voice, the overwhelming majority of the American people, across the political spectrum, are saying NO to another war in the Middle East -- Syria’s bloody and complicated civil war.

There are two major reasons why the people in this country are adamantly opposed to the U.S.’s military intervention in Syria.

First, of course, is the much discussed “war weariness.” The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 12 years, and the war in Iraq dragged on for nearly nine years. The cost of these wars has been horrendous: more than 6,700 American deaths; hundreds of thousands suffering from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder; and a financial cost of between $4 trillion to $6 trillion by the time the last war veteran receives needed care. Further, as a result of the ineptitude and dishonesty of foreign policy decisions made in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people worry deeply about the unintended consequences of another military venture.

But there’s another reason why Americans are reluctant to get involved in a third Middle East war in 12 years. And that relates to the fact that Congress today has a 14 percent favorability rating and millions of Americans have absolutely no confidence that the U.S. House or Senate is even remotely concerned about their needs or views.

Here’s the truth. The middle class in this country is collapsing. The number of Americans living in poverty is nearly the highest on record and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. And very few people in Washington give a damn.

Year after year the American people have begged the Congress and the president to move aggressively to protect the middle class from total collapse. And, so far, their leaders have failed to act. Today, the American people are demanding action to create jobs for their kids and retirement security for their parents.

They are deeply worried about the state of the economy, and they have every reason to worry. Here’s what’s going on:

• Real unemployment: Counting those who have given up looking for work and those who are working part-time when they need a full time job, the real unemployment rate is 13.7 percent, not 7.3 percent.

 

• Average wages: Non-supervisory workers have seen their wages go down by eight cents an hour since the beginning of the so-called recovery and are now a paltry $8.77 an hour.

 

• Income and wealth inequality: From 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 95 percent of all new income, while the typical middle class family has seen their income go down by more than2,100. The Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, are worth more than $100 billion and own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.

 

• College unaffordability: Over the past 30 years, the cost of a college education has gone up by more than 250 percent. The average American graduating from college this year is drowning in debt of more than35,000. Even worse, hundreds of thousands of high school graduates are unable to go to college each and every year not because they are unqualified, but because they can’t afford it.

 

• Childhood poverty: We live in the richest country in the world, yet one out of five children in the U.S. is stuck in poverty. And the reality is that children living in poverty in America today are more likely to stay in poverty when they grow up than in any other advanced country on earth.

The lesson to be learned from the widespread opposition to the war is that the American people standing together can make a difference. Building on that momentum, now is the time to demand that Congress create millions of decent-paying jobs repairing our crumbling roads, bridges, dams, culverts, schools and housing.

We need to end our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that are threatening the planet and move toward energy efficiency and renewable energy. We must increase the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour and lift millions of Americans out of poverty. We must fundamentally rewrite our trade policy so that American products, not American jobs, are our No. 1 export. We must stand up to the greed on Wall Street by breaking up too-big-to-fail banks that have done so much damage to the economy. And, we must make college affordable so that every qualified American can get the education they need to reclaim the American dream.

None of this will be easy. But the American people have proven that if they speak out, if they flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and emails, they can stop a war. Now is the time to use that same energy and passion to save the middle class.
------

Putin Correct to Warn About American Exceptionalism

I know it's "politically incorrect" (at least American-style) to applaud and assert a foreign leader is spot -on in his perceptions, but no matter what the blowhard punditocracy says, Putin nailed it in his NY Times op -ed  ('A Plea for Caution from Russia') today.  Among the things Putin wrote, with which no sane or rational person could disagree (especially after last night's NBC News segment showing radical jihadis staging in Turkey then moving into Syria with IEDs etc.):

"A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism."

After seeing the pro-Syrian opposition jihadis whipping a couple for marrying non-Muslims on the same NBC segment, I believe it! And the U.S. would be dumb as a sack of hammers to oust Assad by helping these "rebels" - when it will likely be a replay of their dopey ignorant move helping Osama and his rebels in the 1980s, to harass the Soviets who had occupied Afghanistan. Stay with the devil you know, in other words, instead of unleashing tens of thousands of devils you don't. As one of the jihadis interviewed on the NBC spot put it:

"We want the Americans and Assad forces to fight, then when Assad is weak we can move in!"

Really? Hope Obama is paying attention here!

Putin went on:

"It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa."

And:

"No one doubts there was poison gas used in Syria, but there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army but by opposition forces... to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists"

Well, where have we seen this before? In Afghanistan, in the 80s, as I already noted, siding with Osama bin Laden to harass and punish the Russians. And more recently, in Egypt, siding with the Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi.....well, how did that turn out?

Putin then hit the chord with American exceptionalism, a meme American Neoliberal Presidents have fed to their charges since the Reagan era - trying to take the minds of the hoi polloi off the vast and expanding economic inequality that's emerged as a direct result of their allowing and enabling the war state's meddling ....from Reagan in Nicaragua and Honduras, to Bush I in the Gulf (after encouraging Saddam's reckless expansion), to Clinton in Kosovo, to Bush II in Afghanistan and Iraq - when the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. But then Bush's oilmen had special deals with the Saudis, so couldn't go after them- hence allowing the bin Laden family to leave the country in the wake of the attacks.  Oh, and Obama now wanting to meddle in Syria if the Russians "aren't serious".

Putin wrote:

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional , whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy"

According to the corpora-media blow drieds this a.m.  the WH dismissed it as "posturing" but they shouldn't. Whether really posturing or not, the words contain more than the proverbial grain of truth - in fact, they contain a store house of truth.

One can debate about whether Putin was "posturing" or "hypocritical" in lecturing on democracy, but he was dead on in terms of sounding the dangers of American exceptionalism.

Exceptionalism refers to the virulent meme that Americans and the U.S. are somehow "special" in history and hence, are charged with acting "special" on the world stage. That ranges from valuing American lives much more than foreign ones - embodied in the U.S. refusal to sign on to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - which explains how military strikes and aggression can be carried out without being mindful of collateral damage, to indiscriminately messing in other nations' because the U.S.  feels it's a sole superpower's "right" to do so.

In regard to the devaluation of foreign lives one can look at travesties from meddling in Honduras and Guatemala - see e.g.  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/  leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, as well as extended internal instability to the malignant  exceptionalist invasions sponsored by the Bushies in the name of the so-called "Bush doctrine".   These, when the historical savvy person examines them, little different from the Nazi ideology of Lebensraum, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

The point is, the maniacal Bushie Neocons believed their own puffed up bullshit that this nation is "exceptional" and has the right to lord it over all others, by intervening and "policing" any time it chooses. No bigger pile of horse shit has ever been conceived as national policy and Americans would do well to reject it.

Does that mean the rational American rejects ALL wars? Of course not! There ARE just wars, just as there are unjust and ILLEGAL wars!  World War II was a just war because first, Americans were attacked by the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor, and second the Axis Powers and especially Japan and Nazi Germany, were bent on global domination. Not to have responded would have invited a nightmare world we can only imagine today.

Vietnam, by contrast, was an ILLEGAL war! The conflict was started on a pretext, i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  wherein the Turner Joy and Maddox were allegedly attacked without provocation in the summer of 1964. The claim of baby killer LBJ was that the attack(s) were initiated by the North Vietnamese.  But in 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.

The report stated regarding August 2:

“At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first”

and regarding August 4:

“It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2”


In other words, the U.S. "exceptionalist" aggressors used it as a pretext to demand the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launch a war that killed nearly 58,000.

Here's advice for every real red -blooded American, as opposed to the paper patriots, including cook and bottle washers who pound their chests for having "served their country" but never saw more than a soup spoon and kettle: Don't trust anything any leader says if he uses the words "exceptional" as applied to you the citizen or the country as a whole, or  employs manipulative bafflegab throwaways like "freedom" and especially "defending our freedoms".

Oh, and if he asserts:  "Y'er either with us or against us!" Tell him to fuck himself!

See also:  http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/51589/the-presidents-speech-reveals-he-has-never-seen-war

Have Americans - Especially Their Government - Learned Anything From 9/11?

“Americans are apt to scoff at the idea that a military coup in the U.S, as so often happens in Latin American countries, could ever replace our government. But that is an idea that has grounds for consideration.”  Lee Harvey Oswald, from his July 27, 1963 talk given at  The Jesuit House of Studies, Spring Hill College, Mobile AL.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few”-        James Madison

Is it possible that one of the things that may have signed Lee Oswald's death warrant - was his little known talk at the Jesuit House of Studies at Spring Hill College, Mobile? James Douglass in his stirring book, JFK and the Unspeakable, certainly put that out there to consider (p. 331) though he also does acknowledge that Lee may never have actually verbalized outwardly the content in his notes. But does it matter? If indeed the CIA was in the process of sheepdipping him, as noted by John Newman ('Oswald and the CIA') then whether he actually said the key words may be immaterial. He had disclosed himself as a threat that had to be eliminated - preferably after his arrest for a murder he didn't commit.

This is a critical observation because many deep politics observers believe that the country rapidly mutated into a military -security state in the wake of Kennedy's assassination. (For a plausible scenario of how it could have transpired via conspiracy, rent or buy the excellent 1973 movie, Executive Action.)


In his American University speech, JFK noted:

“Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms”.


This could not have pleased the warmongers, especially among his Joint Chiefs - who had already been appalled at his failure to bomb and invade Cuba during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis some eight months earlier.

Anyway, the point of this post is that the U.S. not only emerged as a hyper-militant state (empire)  after Kennedy's death, aggressively launching an illegal war in Vietnam - but a national security state as well. The two in concert incepted a toxic policy paranoia that has generated blowback over more than three decades.  In the case of Vietnam, the security state propelled LBJ's retraction of  JFK's National Security Memorandum 263 ( which would have evacuated all personnel). Worse, LBJ  used a security -state developed bogus ploy:  the alleged North Vietnamese firing on the Maddox and Turner Joy in Aug, 1964 to justify a full scale war which led to 58,000 Americans killed.  Vietnam also launched the weasel ploy of  congress "authorizing" further military actions - when actual wars would have been declared, as per the Constitution. All of this in concert, together with how and where the U.S. has stuck its nose in other nations' business (when Kennedy rejected any 'Pax Americana') makes one wonder if American leaders even grasp the concept of 'blowback'.

In a September 13, 2001 interview with the magazine In These Times, Chalmers Johnson (the author of ‘Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire’) was said to “have seen the September 11 catastrophe coming”.  Johnson’s 2000 book argued that U.S. interventionist foreign policy and military overextension would lead to unintended and unpredictable consequences. A year later, his warning seemed eerily prescient. Though JFK wasn’t so prescient in a specific context, his American University Pax Americana  speech, he generically prefigured the horrific consequences if the U.S. insisted on being the policeman of the world, enforcing peace with American weapons of war.    Also, holding the rest of the world up to standards it didn't follow itself!

This speech probably set the foundation for Kennedy’s plan (under NSAM-263) to pull out of Vietnam (after the 1964 elections,  when political repercussions would be minimal). He could likely see that if, indeed, the U.S. remained in Vietnam, the perils of a much wider war, along with consolidation of the military-industrial-oil complex,  would be unavoidable.


Back to Chalmers Johnson and some of the answers to questions he gave in his In These Times interview:

Q1. Is what happened on September 11 an example of blowback?


Of course it is. That's exactly what my book was written for: It was a warning to my fellow Americans, a year ago, that our foreign policy was going to produce something like this. It's important to stress, contrary to what people in Washington and the media are saying, that this was not an attack on the United States: This was an attack on American foreign policy. It was an example of the strategies of the weak against the overwhelmingly powerful.


Q2. Osama bin Laden has been named the primary suspect in these attacks. In the first chapter of Blowback, you talk about earlier American attacks on Osama bin Laden as an example of "a spiral of destructive behavior."


I heard Sen. John McCain say this morning that the people of Afghanistan have nothing to worry about if they would just turn over Osama bin Laden and cooperate with us. ... Where was he during the '80s, when we and the Soviet Union were destroying Afghanistan? Our efforts were to hire people like bin Laden to come from Saudi Arabia and help give the Soviet Union a Vietnam-like experience.


Don't get me wrong. Everyone understands that the people of New York, the people of Washington, the people on the airplanes were innocent bystanders—and that is the nature of this kind of warfare. Our Department of Defense invented the phrase "collateral damage" to deal with the dead Iraqis and the dead Serbs as a result of our bombings of their countries. ... I know it sounds cruel to say, but the people of New York were collateral damage of American foreign policy. It was inevitable that something like this would come back.
 
Q.3 You implied that this type of terrorist warfare seems to be the warfare of the future. I assume that you would expect to see more?


No nation can hope to beat the United States on American terms. Therefore you must devise a strategy that essentially makes our overwhelming military capability worthless. I think they have managed to do so.

People in Washington are continually talking about declaring war—but declaring war on whom? They don't know. If they are going to go out and attack Afghanistan, it will simply produce a further cycle of blowback and retaliation. In the meantime, it will also even further inflame the entire Middle East.


Q.4 If not military force, then what could be effective against this type of terrorist warfare?

What we need to find out is: what are we doing that is provoking this? Is there any flexibility in our policy? Couldn't we alter our policies somewhat? Couldn't we make it our business to try to stay out of fratricidal and hate-laden conflicts? And then, to the extent that we are still the victim of terrorism (which we always will be) then we need a much greater analytic effort to defend ourselves, and that should not be impossible to craft.

Clearly, what happened on September 11 was an almost catastrophic failure of intelligence by extremely expensive agencies that do not do anything. And so far, the American reaction seems to be to target the Bill of Rights more than anything else. Retaliation is not the answer. It hasn't worked for Israel it has only exacerbated the situation. It won't work for us.


Q.5 Is it possible that blowback may take place internally as well as externally?


The greatest danger we have now is militarism in America. We have this huge, overpowering, unbelievably expensive military establishment. It is something from the days of Washington's farewell address to Eisenhower's invention of the phrase "military-industrial complex" that seasoned U.S. leaders have warned against—the threat of a huge military establishment to the liberty of our citizens.

I fear that from this we are going to get even more militarism. That is, more and more functions—including domestic police functions—will be transferred from civilian institutions to the military, and the military will have ever greater authority in our society. We know how that will end based on history, especially of the Roman and British Empires. We're talking here about military overstretch, and the attendant weaknesses of the imperial structure (including continuous financing) that will ultimately lead to total collapse.
--------

Of course, Johnson’s prediction that we’re going to “get even more militarism” has come to pass, what with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (violating Article VI of the Nuremberg laws) and now the drums beating ever louder for an attack on Syria - which will really let loose the dogs of blowback if Chalmers Johnson's answers are to be believed - and I do believe them whole heartedly.

Fortunately, the Russians and Vladimir Putin have proposed a way out of the Syria mess, which requires the Syrian regime to declare all stockpiles of chemical weapons, and ultimately subject them to capture or destruction. There would then be a basis for UN inspectors to get on the ground in Syria and do assays and inspections. Of course, this will take time and so the Amerikkan Empire purveyors and blowback inceptors are already huffing and puffing that "it's all a ploy". This because Russia retracted a resolution regarding inspections yesterday. But what none of the pundits said, except Chris Hayes, is that the Russians (rightfully) want NO resolutions done with a U.S. "gun" pointed to anyone's head, whether Russia's or Syria's. Do the resolution, sure, but not under threat that if such and such markers aren't met and 'x' hoops aren't jumped through in 'y' time, an attack will ensue,

The question then is have American leaders learned the lessons of blowback from their policies, which led directly to 9/11? (In that case the establishment of American bases in Saudi Arabia, left from the Gulf War.))

The answer will hinge on what we see Obama and his bunch do now, given the Russian Syrian proposal. Wifey - who watched his speech- told me he was accepting of the deal, and very humble. He actually acknowledged that the U.S. "cannot be the policeman of the world."  This at least discloses Obama might have partially learned the lessons of 9/11 but I need to see more than words. I want to see a firm leash put on the military dogs preventing them from being unleashed after Assad or Syria, if certain artificial time limits or conditions aren't met. (And again, bear in mind I already made the case the U.S. has no moral authority to be bossing around anyone, "punishing" or anything else, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-us-lacks-moral-authority-to-launch.html

Will we see more 9/11s? Will we see an increased consolidation of the military -surveillance state even beyond what exists now, which as David Lindorff put it in one blog - surpasses even the excesses depicted in Orwell's '1984'?

That depends on how this Syrian crisis plays out.

The whole world is watching, and all American citizens ought to stay tuned as well!

See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/51567/a-people-s-victory-over-syrian-attack-plan-in-historic-first-american-empire-is-blocked-at-the-starti

With Russian Warships Headed for Syria - There's NOTHING Obama Can Say to Convince Us To Start A War!

The Russian warship 'Moskva' in a Ukrainian Black Sea port, already headed for Syria.

According to The Christian Science Monitor (Sept. 6) at least three Russian warships are  headed for Syrian waters, and more might be on the way, including a frigate and another landing ship. The ships are coming from the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol, according to CBS News

Why so much sea power? ?

The Kremlin’s chief of staff says it’s to evacuate Russians from Syria if a looming US air attack makes that necessary. But don't be so sure. While not yapping any threats, it is clear to experienced Russian observers they are more than ready for a fight, and a final face down against a super power which has thrown its weight around way too long.   The Monitor cites the Institute for the Study of War, on its Syria blog, that the Russian spy ship - the Priazovye - carries both active (radar) and passive (sonar) sensors that would enable it to possibly determine the location of the US ships. This alone would allow them to transmit locations to the Iranians in order to more accurately fire their own missiles at the ships - in retaliation. So the Russians can become involved, even if not directly.

Is there much to fret over? You better believe it, despite dweezil John Miller - former spook and now useless spook and pro-NSA mouthpiece - blabbering this morning on CBS' Early Show that there really shouldn't be any Syrian "retaliation" because the U.S. is only administering a limited "punishment" blow and why would Assad risk more retaliation if his proxies or himself launches counter attacks?

Well, uh, you dumb fucking dildo, because we are launching an unlawful act of war - an aggressive action against a state that has not threatened our interests at all!  Not killed one American!  You think after  lobbing over 150 Tomahawks, and dropping hundreds of tons of bombs using B1 and B52  bombers- likely killing hundreds,  the Syrians, Iranians, Russians will go quietly into that good night and suck it up? What are you, stupid?  They will unleash everything, as Assad asserted this morning in an interview with Charlie Rose  - and that could range from Iranian missile attacks on U.S. ships, to Syrian missile attacks on Israel, to terror attacks by Hezbollah and more blowback for us - as if we needed more terrorists to hamper our civil liberties.

But the worst fear is some accidental hit on Russian ships provoking an initial massive conventional response, which in turn could escalate to a limited nuclear war with tactical nukes - then to a full scale nuclear war.  Having lived through the Cuban Missile crisis back in October, 1962, I see the same perils - with U.S. and Russian ships perilously close to each other, and the chance of any misfire or miscalculation leading to worse consequences. Fortunately, nuclear war didn't erupt then because cooler heads prevailed - including John Kennedy facing down two Joint Chiefs: Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis Lemay, who wanted him to go full bore bombing and invading Cuba. Had he been stupid enough to do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation - the planet would still be a pile of smoldering ruins and ash.

But it appears Obama and his bunch, including "Lurch" Kerry, haven't learned from past history. And so Obama wants to make a "case" tomorrow night for striking Syria.....and maybe launching WWIII. The man of "hope and change" finally can be seen for what he really is, a warmonger, no different from Bush I or Bush II.  As Prof. Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, put it: "I want my money back!" 

Look, with the potential for global disaster now the highest it's been since perhaps October, 1962, there is really nothing Obama can say, no amount of rhetoric, and no amount of pseudo-evidence to convince us to start a war we likely can't control and won't be able to stop once it starts. We have been mired in two "wars" (actually occupations) the past 12 years, and it is now THIS nation that needs rebuilding and desperately! Besides, there is a debt ceiling limit soon to arrive within weeks. Do we really have the funds, resources to wage another prolonged battle against Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia? I think not.

The buzz this morning is that Obama won't even wait until the House vote (with the real people's representatives) but will act after the Senate vote passes a fig leaf "resolution"  - which it likely will. Who can forget The Treason of the Senate by David Graham Phillips? And it's as true today as it was back in 1906, given the Senate represents millionaires who have little in common with the people. It is really  the House of Representatives that are the true people's reps - so if Obama just ignores them, he's flouting the Constitution.


Obama seems not to be aware of the potential to destroy whatever legacy he still has left, by an irrational act designed merely to: a) teach a lesson to Iran (which might be next) and b) make sure everyone knows he ain't foolin' when he invokes  "red lines"!

What I want to know is what happened to the guy that received the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe he ought to think of giving it back.

As for me, I will be sure to watch some movies on the tube when Obama is making his spiel. There is nothing he can say which will convince me to change my mind - and I believe that holds for millions of other citizens too. More hot air and propaganda we don't need!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/51536/white-house-lies-to-launch-the-next-illegal-war-there-is-no-justification-for-obama-s-war-on-syria

Think Romney Wouldn't Have Planned Syria Attack? Think AGAIN!

"Today we start a war in the Persian Gulf if the right thumb comes up. But if the left thumb comes up then we bomb Syria! Both come up and we do both! Heh, heh, heh!"





It's passing unbelievable but some necrophilous, Right wing bloggers actually believe Obama is unique in planning an attack on Syria. While calling him "O'Bummer" they assert - I kid you  not- that they'd actually like to see a nuclear war unfold on the scale depicted in the 1983 Brit film 'Threads' and then they could see all of us who voted for Obama last November "running and screaming like pussies with our skin burning off."


Hmmmmm......typical necrophilous bombast and bluster, but they miss the point. Had the Mittster been elected he'd be planning a similar assault, if not worse. It's not the MAN, Reich wing dumbos, it's the Neoliberal war -for -capital Washington consensus! And that means when you're the man in power, okay let me rephrase that....when you're the guy that gets elected, you toe the line of the Capitalist Neoliberal War State. That easy enough for you?

Since most of these Reich wing necrotics have the attention span of gnats and the memories of amoebae, it pays to refresh their minds as to what Mitt actually said in one of his debates, the Monday, October 22nd, foreign policy debate. As I noted in my blog of the next day, recapping the debate:

"On every issue, from Libya, to Syria, to use of drones, to leaving Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Egypt and deposing Mubarak, Romney sided with Obama. It was more like being in an 'echo chamber' than watching a debate! "

I also noted earlier how Romney at an APAC confab, admitted he'd  "send battle ships into the Persian Gulf and fire missiles on Tehran if need be."

If need be? Or if the capitalist warmonger state and its shadow oligarchs dictated it? More likely the latter. And, of course, if he felt no hesitation about lobbing Tomahawks into Iran, he'd have fewer lobbing them into Syria ......or anyplace else the war hawks demanded. Because see, since JFK's assassination, THEY are the ones running the country and its military- national security policy. This is the point to which we've arrived and presidents (with some minor latitude on timing of attacks) are merely 'yes' men.

This is hard for the  Right's nuts to grasp, only because they deliberately eschew conventional conspiracies in favor of the truly whacked out ones, like: FEMA and the UN setting up concentration camps - after they seize the guns, or Obama really being a Muslim and having some pact with them, or his Affordable Care Act being a device to sneak socialism into the country. Hey, dunderheads, the ACA was originally a Republican plan, actually conceived by Nixon in his era! Oh, btw, Romney implemented a smaller scale version of it at the state level in Massachusetts. It was called "Romney care". 

See also: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/10_weirdest_right_wing_christian_conspiracy_theories_partner/

But the intricacies of state power and its connections -networks is not a strong suite of the Right. They simply can't fathom that a hidden cabal of high profile  militarists, oligarchs (such as belong to the Bilderberg group) could possess such power as to really call the shots behind the scenes - as opposed to a single president. Hence, without this insight, they look at each escapade as one man's folly or decision as opposed to the dictates of the hidden Puppeteers. This means, of course, they will never able be able to grasp politics at the deep level....or what we call deep politics.

The bare truth is that even if Romney had been elected back in November, we'd be going through pretty well the same shit right now - maybe even worse. With Romney "in charge"- and a horde of neocons like William Krystal to back him, you'd not just see a two day strike but full regime change a la Saddam in Iraq, with all that implies.

The sad aspect is that the necrophilous righties will never get that....but remain convinced it's all Obama's doing right now, and we who voted for him deserve to be burned alive in a nuclear holocaust. Oh, as for them? They say they don't mind burning up in a nuclear war too so long as they see us "O'Bummer voters" getting it in the end!

Written like true necrophilous psychopaths!

The Hubris and Folly of Empire: How Many More Lies Will We Be Told?

"Violence can never bring peace! War is War!" - Pope Francis, admonishing the U.S. Empire not to strike at Syria as any kind of solution.

"Secretary of State John Kerry made it abundantly clear during a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he is ready to ask someone to be the first to die for a mistake, and did so with a barrage of gibberish so vast that it bent the light in the hearing room.  He insisted with table-pounding vehemence that the president is not asking America to go to war by asking America to flip missiles and bombs into Syria, because it totally won't seem like war to us. - William Rivers Pitt, today on smirkingchimp.com

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address, January, 1961.


Is the U.S. an Empire? Without a doubt! Author Gore Vidal pinpointed the emergence of the American Empire when he noted (Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, 2002, p. 124)


"Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution”.

A sobering look at the consolidation of the American Empire (up to 2007) is provided in the book: The State of the American Empire, particularly the highlighted maps showing its expanse (pp. 70-71), as well as the total of U.S. military interventions from 1945-89 (pp. 76-77). Meanwhile, the comparable military spending per person (page 67) boggles the mind into insensibility. When one beholds these maps and the graphics, one rightfully wonders what current pundits' objections - that the U.S. is "not an Empire" - are all about.

An additional insight is provided with the global map of recipients of U.S. arms sales (pp. 72-73). Adjacent to the key, the author notes:

“The USA is the world’s largest arms exporter and the U.S. government manipulates this trade to influence world events”

Well, how exactly?  Let’s let the author answer this:

“Creating a dependency on weapons gives the USA direct control of a client country’s capacity to defend itself, or to wage aggression, and indirect control over its wider foreign policy”.

The author goes on:

"In the Middle East the U.S. maintains Israeli military domination through arms sales and other forms of aid, but also has Saudi Arabia and Egypt- potential adversaries of Israel- as its biggest customers, although it never arms them to a level of sophistication that will threaten Israel”


Since 2007, of course, the U.S. Empire has expanded massively. The United States now maintains 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries. It has 4,471 bases altogether, according to the Defense Department's annual budget statement. These figures don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're talking about our military presence in nations like Germany, South Korea, and Japan. ALL of these represent redundant costs since the wars that incepted the bases are now more than a half century over! While the total cost of these bases is kept secret, the best analysis I've seen estimates their ten-year cost at approximately $1 trillion, but this is probably lowballed.

What we the citizens need to grasp, is that if we're inhabiting an Empire we are inhabiting a war - addicted nation that must have ever more wars, conflicts and aggression to maintain its existing "security". In addition, Empires lean toward fascism ultimately, and this means: a) a weakened congress (no separation of powers)  which abdicates its declaration of war powers, ceding them to a run amuck "unitary" executive, and b) an expanded national surveillance state - which thanks to Ed Snowden - we now also are aware of and ought to be awarding him a freedom medal as opposed to calling for his head.

We also need to be historically literate as to what happens to all Empires! Bottom line: they collapse. Usually this isn't from without, i..e. external enemies, barbarians or "terrorists",  but from expanded massive debt owing to what has been called "military overstretch". The massive debt destabilizes internal domestic security, for example, when roads, bridges, water mains don't get repaired, and citizens find themselves poorer and living in an increasingly inequitable society because so much spending is allocated to warfare and defense. The figures for U.S. bases given earlier should alert everyone to the fact we're already in the zone of military overstretch.

More wars of influence are needed to sustain this overstretch, because the resources of those (designated "enemy") countries are the only way to try to pay off the  existing debt. But it never works, because like a coke addict, the war state must continually move on to its next 'hit'. As with all such preludes, the truth is the first casualty and that's what we've now found with this Syria attack prelude.  Now, according to additional reports from ABC News last night the Pentagon "has expanded targets" to be hit in Syria and also intends to use B-1 and B-52 bombers to drops tens of thousands of tons equivalent of TNT on these assorted expanded targets. This, in addition, to U.S. warships equipped with over 100 cruise missiles, all to be fired at targets at a cost of $2m each. (This as we face an increase in the debt ceiling past $16.7 trillion in a matter of weeks)


The news of the expanded targets and increased bombing capacity discloses we've already been lied to. We had been informed at first it would only be a "limited strike" presumably with only cruise missiles, no heavy bombers. What next? What other lies? We've been told by Kerry "no boots on the ground" but as several pundits with clear heads noted (including Eugene Robinson on 'Morning Joe' this a.m.) no one can promise that.  In the laws and landscape of unintended consequences, make sure you factor in the immediate retaliation by Syria's allies - including Iran.

As Williams Rivers Pitt has already noted, Syria and Iran are strategic allies, pledged to each other's mutual defense. This means if the U.S. Empire launches an attack as currently described,  all the Iranian missile sites in the mountains above the Persian Gulf coast could launch their missiles in retaliation.  Rivers also noted that those Iranian missiles are not Iraqi Scuds, they are advanced enough to spoof Aegis radar systems, which means thousands of American service members currently manning our warships in the Gulf could very quickly be delivered into a watery grave.  Iran has also vowed to attack U.S.  Embassies in the region.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah as well as Iran are liable to launch massive terror, rocket and other attacks in Lebanon as well as Israel.  Israel is likely to strike back, and Russia has asserted (last night) it will respond to ANY U.S. aggression, though not elaborating.

Do we really want to go this route?  The 'powers that be'  claim the strikes will still be limited and the collateral damage will be restricted. They still also maintain this is a "punishment operation". Who are they kidding? Not the informed and historically literate citizen! As Chalmers Johnson has noted ('Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic', p. 27) the U.S. - despite pretentiously boasting what a sanctimonious nation it is, hence the only one qualified to dish out "punishments" to other nations,  has never been a signatory to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949.

This relates to the "Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1, June 8, 1977)" and explicitly states :

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of a civilian population such as: food stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive,"

Johnson notes the U.S.  flagrantly violated this Protocol in the first Gulf War - destroying facilities for water purification and sewage treatment plants resulting in "epidemics of cholera, gastroenteritis, and typhoid....leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate. "

Johnson cited Colonel John A.  Warden III's writings in his Airpower Journal.  He went on to observe that a team from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested in May 1991, that "at least 170,000 children would die in the coming year from the delayed effects of the bombing."

In the meantime, what of the tolls, e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the wake of the  9/11 attacks. Johnson cites an excerpt from a '60 Minutes' interview with Madeleine Albright, by correspondent Leslie Stahl (p. 25). She asked:

"We have heard that about a half million children have died as a result of the sanctions in Iraq. That's more than died in Hiroshima. Was the price worth it?"

Albright replied:

"I think this is a very hard choice. But we think the price is worth it."

WORTH IT??? A Half million kids dead and the price was worth it?  But see, this is the Neoliberal 'war for capital-resources' in action and how it really has no concern for casualties at all. That's all bullshit. The only thing it cares about is making the planet safe for global capital! This is the primo reason the war makers want to strike Syria now as well, and devil take the hindmost.

But this is how hardcore Empires act. And it is also why our beloved "reps" mostly lie through their teeth. Last night, for example, on the ABC News, both John McCain and Dianne Feinstein were shown reacting to their constituents' pleas, i.e.  to vote against any attacks on Iraq. What were their smug replies? The Neoliberal security state quisling Feinstein merely smiled and assured the interviewer yes, her folks were against it "but then they don't know what I know."  Sound familiar? That's also the smug, smarmy ass riposte  she delivered two months ago,  to defend continued NSA spying after the Snowden PRISM and XKeyscore expose.

As for Insane McCain, well he claimed "the numbers are getting better the more town halls I hold." Really, Johnno? That's not what it looked like in the clips we saw.

The American, people - left and right (but obviously for different reasons) are four square against this foolish planned strike which will only unleash the dogs of war, as well as umpteen terror attacks in a blowback we can only try to imagine. We are all of one mind in stopping this thing before it starts - and it may well be one of the few times you see Atheists join hands with fundies and a pope in common cause.

If You're Against Radical Jihadists - You Need to OPPOSE Attacks on Syria!

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
— Martin Luther King, Jr.,

"As always, the war’s stated purpose — “a punitive strike against the Syrian government” — is just a cover story. The U.S. and its possible allies, France and Great Britain, all have an interest in regaining influence in Syria, which requires Assad’s collapse. But beyond the geopolitics, there are deeper and darker hidden motives for launching a bright new war. We, or at least our government and the economic interests it serves, are addicted to war. This addiction is the Washington consensus. Almost every politician who rises to prominence has to embrace this consensus."- Robert C. Koehler,  'Stopping A War Before It Starts', smirkingchimp.com today


The image this morning (on CBS's Early show) of rebels standing over butchered, headless bodies ought to be a last wake up call for Americans, i.e.  who the hell might comprise a large portion of Assad's opposition. It also brought to mind the video  images of a few months ago, when a rebel dug his paws into a downed Syrian regime defender, ripped out his heart, and ate part of it. Look, these oppositionists are not angels. (Assad sure as shit isn't either, but that's the point! It's an internal civil war between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam!) Also we still don't know - despite even smarmy liberal bloviators - that this opposition or factions within it,  didn't actually launch the gas attacks to drag the U.S. into the fray. It's not incomprehensible, and despite all Kerry's gum flapping he hasn't presented any forensic evidence showing the gas was industrially manufactured - as opposed to home made.

On Steve Koroacki's MSNBC program ('UP') Sunday, guest Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, came out swinging and gave a wake up call to the mainly pro-attack zombies:

'What if Assad didn't order this? What if this wasn't a Syrian troop chemical attack. What if this was perpetrated by al Qaeda affiliated oppositionists. The consequences here for going into Syria are even more grave than Iraq. Because if we go into Syria and the al Qaeda groups get away with mass chemical warfare- and that's what happened - and we think they're going to stop there - that's the definition of insanity."


Prof. Leverett then pointed out that the Russians and Chinese didn't pull their people out of Syria like the U.S.  but went to the last chemical weapons attack sites in March. What did they find? According to her:

"They did forensics on the ground themselves and found two striking things which have not been covered here in the press at home: One was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were home made rockets. Not military or industrially produced. The other thing they found is that the sarin was not military ordnance or industrially produced, it didn't include stabilizers. So maybe the Russians have a point."

Why haven't these been covered by the media at home? Maybe because they're as hot to trot for an attack as Obama and the M-I-C is! Maybe because they can't wait to televise another late night attack with flashes and noise that they seem to believe subs as a real life video game. But....the people on the ground won't be laughing or entertained.


Okay, let's cut the crap. Despite all the Neoliberal warmongering and pundit baloney and BS that  this planned attack on Syria is a "punishment operation" - let me make clear for all remaining sentient citizens that it's an act of war and will be perceived as such by Syria and its allies. Hence, it will invite retaliation and likely massive retaliation! There is no soft soaping this - and what is ambiguated by an above-the- law Empire as "punishment" will be seen by the sentient and sensible global citizen as a pre-emptive,  aggressive strike against a sovereign state - that hasn't killed one single American or demonstrably been proven to affect American interests.


It's not just me, a "rabid" die-hard liberal (actually socialist) saying this either! Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies(appearing on MSNBC's 'The Cycle yesterday )  laid it on the line that NO , the U.S. isn't "following the world" (on any issuance of a "red line")  to address any humanitarian concerns in Syria,  it is pushing the world to follow its lead. But he added that this could have severe repercussions because no matter what we believe, our aggression and attacks will be regarded by the Syrians (as well as the Russians, Iran) as an act of war- inviting full retaliation which could assume myriad forms - from massive cyber attacks, knocking down power grids,  to Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. fleet, to Russian bombing of U.S. destroyers in retaliation for any collateral damage.

Lt. Col. Shaffer  also warned of the possibility of  accidental killing of their technicians,  who help maintain the Syrian air force. Think Putin wouldn't retaliate for killing Russian techs or other personnel? Think again!

And again, keep in mind the images of the radical jihadists we've already seen. Why are so damned many elites - who really don't have that much  real skin in the game (other than egos) -  convinced the jihadists are in the minority? And because of the assumption of jihadi minority status or having no part in the gas attacks, the U.S. can feel free to hurl cruise missiles into Syria.  Could it be an inability to think?  This is the hypothesis of the late Chalmers Johnson, in his book: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. 

Johnson references Hanna Arendt's A Report on the Banality of Evil (p. 21) and the model of Adolf Eichmann as a "desk murderer" which also applied (according to Johnson) to  George W. Bush. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who "order remote controlled killing of the modern sort" including "the firing of cruise missiles from a warship at sea " or the "firing of a Hellfire missile from a Predator, unmanned aerial vehicle controlled by 'pilots' thousands of miles away". These cowards are also "desk murderers" and every bit the contributors to the banality of evil as Eichmann.

How do people, including leaders, become "desk murderers"? Johnson notes (p. 22):

"First, they lose the ability to think because, according to Arendt, 'thinking conditions men against evil doing'".

What  she means is that before one commits an evil act, if he THINKS properly first, he will insert the act into a frame of exterior reference to forecast the effects on all those affected. Like a chess player, he will be able to see 6-10 moves ahead on how he can't advance a certain aggressive plan (i.e. taking the opponent's queen) without serious penalty. Hence,  the thinker will see the adverse consequences his act will lead to, and back away from the precipice.

Let us bear in mind again, as I wrote before, many evil acts are committed with good intentions. The evil then inheres in improper thinking,  which feeds the creation of false beliefs i.e. "We must be the world's guardians of  international norms, law and morality and it's our right to punish all other nations if they act bad." And then leads to an apparent rationally justified evil act.

Johnson goes on (ibid.):

"Jerome Kohn adds, 'With some degree of confidence it may be said that the ability to think, which Eichmann lacked, is the precondition of judging, and that the refusal as well as the inability to judge- to imagine before your eyes the others whom your judgment represents and to whom it responds, invite evil to enter and infect the world'. To lack a personal conscience means 'never to start the soundless, solitary dialogue we call thinking."

What must the putative leader be wary of, whether military or political? According to Johnson (ibid.):

"Instantly and unthinkingly following orders, submission to clichés, stock phrases and adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct - which have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality. That is, against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and facts arouse by virtue of their existence."

Instead of going all around the G-20 in St Petersburg and trying to badger the assembled delegates into joining him in an act of evil folly, Obama needs to find a quiet room, and in his solitary being,  think of what he is emotively planning to do:  inflicting this long distance "limited punishment" on Syria. If he is still able to think and has not been overly preconditioned by conventional responses,  mental artifacts and expected codes (or HIS OWN "red lines"), he will see what he thinks is a national "good" is not the answer.

Let us hope he follows this advice!

On a further note, it's been reported (e.g. at salon.com) this morning that Pope Francis has urged leaders of the Group of 20 to abandon the “futile pursuit” of a military solution in Syria and work instead for dialogue and negotiation to end the conflict.  Obama, you paying attention?

See also:   http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/51460/all-scrubbed-up-nowhere-to-show

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-c-koehler/51459/stopping-a-war-before-it-starts

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/51820/syrian-rebels-embrace-al-qaeda