WAR
oddly blank 519
primary on 1119 b/c putin took crimea --> sanctions/ manafort change rnc platform
agw chaos has caused war in syria w/ more to come
eve of probable ukraine invasion
https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/trump-putin/
"tough, smart"
putin took crimea, little green men in Dombass -->
1 22 an
no lnx
Echoing ‘Vladimir Putin’s talking points’ is putting Fox News at odds with ‘pro-Ukraine’ Republicans: conservative
Fox News' Tucker Carlson speaking at the 2020 Student Action Summit, hosted by Turning Point USA at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida,
Alex Henderson January 28, 2022
During the George W. Bush years, the right-wing media, including Fox News, were quick to parrot neoconservative talking points. But Fox News has since taken a much more Trumpian turn, and its biggest star, Tucker Carlson, often promotes MAGA isolationism and a hypernationalist “America first” ideology. That isolationism, Never Trump conservative David Frum stresses in an article published by The Atlantic on January 28, is putting Fox News pundits at odds with more hawkish conservatives when it comes to Russia and Ukraine.
:{
}:
“Night after night,” Frum explains, “the host of the top-rated show on Fox News repeats Vladimir Putin’s talking points justifying aggression against Ukraine and opposing U.S. aid to that threatened sovereign country. Tucker Carlson’s influence is felt across right-wing social media, where it is amplified by figures such as Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Glenn Greenwald and Mollie Hemingway. A highly visible coterie of socially conservative intellectuals also argues the case against helping Ukraine.”
Frum continues, “Meanwhile, day after day, Republican officeholders in the House and the Senate urge more support for Ukraine. That list includes not only traditionalists such as Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, but also, many legislators who got close to former President Donald Trump, such as Senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.”
President Joe Biden has had a much more hawkish tone with Russia and President Vladimir Putin than Trump, and Frum notes that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has “backed the Biden Administration’s approach, as have the top Republicans on the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees.”
“Broadly, Republican elected officials and the think tanks that advise them are staunchly pro-Ukraine; conservative talkers, especially on TV and social media, are varying degrees of anti-Ukraine,” Frum observes. “Russia-Ukraine is becoming a trial of strength, not only between Putin and NATO, but between different parts of the conservative world…. As powerful as Fox News messaging is, scenes of violence after Russian aggression sends Ukrainian refugees streaming westward to safety would be powerful too.”
Frum adds, “Americans are never eager to get involved in other people’s fights, but they remain deeply committed to a vision of their country as a force for good in the world.” many twt
https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/climate-change-future/
war burkina faso, [tigre ...] more drown meditt
https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/as-coronavirus-pandemic-sweeps-the-globe-trump-authorizes-new-bombing-campaign-in-the-middle-east
no lnx
As coronavirus pandemic sweeps the globe, Trump authorizes new bombing campaign in the Middle East
Written by Jake Johnson / Common Dreams March 13, 2020
Authorized by President Donald Trump, U.S. forces late Thursday carried out a wave of airstrikes across Iraq purportedly targeting an Iran-linked militia that the Pentagon claims was behind a rocket attack that killed two American servicemembers earlier this week.
The airstrikes risk sparking yet another dangerous escalation of military tensions between the U.S. and Iran at a uniquely perilous moment: Both nations are struggling to contain and combat the novel coronavirus, with Iran hit particularly hard by the pandemic as it works to muster adequate medical resources while in the vice grip of Trump administration sanctions.
The Trump White House, meanwhile, is under fire for bungling its response the the outbreak and failing to devote sufficient government resources to fighting COVID-19, which has infected over 1,400 people in the United States—a number that experts say is likely to rise dramatically in the coming days as the disease spreads and the remarkably slow rate of testing picks up speed.
“This moment is the last three decades of U.S. foreign policy in miniature: spare nothing for war and military dominance and find little to spare for true threats like climate change and pandemic disease,” tweeted Stephen Wertheim, deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, noted Thursday that “the annual Pentagon budget is $738,000,000,000.”
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 1.5% the size,” Sanders tweeted. “If we can find money on bombs and missiles to kill people, we can damn well afford to protect everyone’s health and take care of each other.”
A senior Trump administration official told the Washington Post late Thursday that the president directed U.S. forces to bomb five Kataib Hezbollah weapons facilities with the stated goal of reducing the group’s “ability to carry out future attacks.”
Kataib Hezbollah is the same Iran-linked militia group that the Trump administration blamed—falsely, according to Iraqi officials—for a rocket attack last December that the White House used as a justification to assassinate Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani with a drone strike in Baghdad, a move that nearly sparked an all-out war.
It is not clear whether there were any casualties from the latest round of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. Harakat al-Nujaba, a separate Iran-backed militia, “accused the United States of hitting militia and Iraqi army headquarters, as well as a civilian airport,” the Post reported.
“In the middle of a global pandemic—while people across the country quarantine in fear and struggle to pay their rent—Trump is bailing out fossil fuel corporations and bombing the Middle East,” tweeted Michael Galant, senior communications associate with advocacy group Win Without War. “It’s all laid bare. For everyone to see.”
Assal Rad
@AssalRad
Remember escalation w/#Iran is Trump’s manufactured crisis.
Stories from #Italy & Iran describe fight against #CODVID19 like war. All hands on deck needed. This is when we’re reminded of real crisis & global challenges. We need diplomacy & cooperation now more than ever.
?????? https://twitter.com/katekizer/status/1238130441359679492 …
Kate Kizer ??
@KateKizer
escalating into a direct conflict with Iran is the last thing the U.S., Iran, and the world needs right now. https://twitter.com/JackDetsch_ALM/status/1238128480581234691 …
Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement late Thursday that “without a radical change in U.S. policy, we risk repeating the escalatory cycle, threatening to plunge the region in yet another conflict and sucking the U.S. into another endless war.”
“Fortunately, Congress just sent a bipartisan resolution to the president’s desk clarifying that he does not have authority to start a war with Iran and urging him to withdraw troops in hostilities with Iran,” Costello said, referring to the War Powers Resolution passed by the House Wednesday. “Rather than ignore Congress and the American people’s wishes on war and peace, he should sign the resolution and urgently seek diplomacy to put the war threat on ice.”
==
see also DN 3/9/20 fighting threatens peace deal w/ taliban
https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/afghanistan-papers-reveal-how-presidents-and-generals-misled-the-american-public-on-wars-progress/
==
==
DoD 54% of discretion budget?
220 dn bernie mike lee utah chris m?
bad news yemen, syria and afgan 2/17/20 DN
==
an 220
https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/bombshell-report-finds-iraqi-officials-doubt-trumps-basis-for-escalating-to-the-brink-of-war/
no lnx
‘Bombshell’ report finds Iraqi officials doubt Trump’s basis for escalating to the brink of war
President Donald J. Trump, joined by Vice President Mike Pence, senior White House advisors and senior military personnel, delivers remarks during a national televised address Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020, from the Cross Hall of the White House, responding to the retaliatory missile strikes against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq on Tuesday by the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Written by Jake Johnson / Common Dreams February 7, 2020
In a “bombshell” revelation that calls into question one of the Trump administration’s stated justifications for assassinating Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani—a move that nearly sparked a region-wide military conflict—Iraqi intelligence officials told the New York Times that they believe ISIS, not an Iran-linked militia, was likely responsible for the Dec. 27 rocket attack that killed an American contractor at an airbase near Kirkuk, Iraq.
The Times reported Thursday that “Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets… saying they believe it is unlikely that the militia the United States blamed for the attack” was responsible.
“All the indications are that it was Daesh,” Brigadier General Ahmed Adnan, the Iraqi chief of intelligence for the federal police at the K-1 air base, told the Times, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. “We know Daesh’s movements.”
The Trump administration has not released a single piece of evidence showing that the Iraqi militia Khataib Hezbollah, which has ties to Iran, was responsible for the attack on K-1. The group has denied carrying out the attack.
The U.S. responded to the rocket attack days later with deadly airstrikes on Khataib Hezbollah targets in Iraq and Syria, setting off a dangerous escalatory spiral that brought Iran and the U.S. to the brink of war.
On Jan. 2, the U.S. assassinated Soleimani with a drone strike in Baghdad ordered by President Donald Trump. Following the assassination, which was widely condemned as an act of war, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a statement claiming without evidence that Soleimani “orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months—including the attack on December 27th—culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel.”
But Iraqi officials told the Times that “based on circumstantial evidence and long experience in the area where the attack took place,” there is good reason to be skeptical about U.S. claims that Khataib Hezbollah was behind it.
As the Times reported:
The rockets were launched from a Sunni Muslim part of Kirkuk Province notorious for attacks by the Islamic State, a Sunni terrorist group, which would have made the area hostile territory for a Shiite militia like Khataib Hezbollah.
Khataib Hezbollah has not had a presence in Kirkuk Province since 2014.
The Islamic State, however, had carried out three attacks relatively close to the base in the 10 days before the attack on K-1. Iraqi intelligence officials sent reports to the Americans in November and December warning that ISIS intended to target K-1, an Iraqi air base in Kirkuk Province that is also used by American forces…
These facts all point to the Islamic State, Iraqi officials say.
“We as Iraqi forces cannot even come to this area unless we have a large force because it is not secure,” Brig. Gen. Adnan said of the area from which the rocket attack was launched. “How could it be that someone who doesn’t know the area could come here and find that firing position and launch an attack?”
In response to the Times report, Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, tweeted: “Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and we went to war with Iraq. If this report is true, ISIS attacked the U.S. and we nearly went to war with Iran.”
Sina Toossi
@SinaToossi
This is huge: Iraqi military & intelligence officials say it’s highly unlikely that a rocket attack that killed an Iraqi-American contractor in early January—& led to an escalation cycle that almost started a war—was carried out by an Iran-allied militia.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/world/middleeast/iraq-iran-hezbollah-evidence.html …
Iraqi soldiers at the K-1 base, which was struck by rockets on Dec. 27.
Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran?
Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events.
nytimes.com
184
3:57 PM - Feb 6, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
119 people are talking about this
CODEPINK
@codepink
The US almost started WWIII based on questionable evidence.
After all of the violence in the Middle East following the attack on US bases, #Iraqi officials are now questioning the US's claim that the #Iran-backed militia Khataib Hezbollah are to blame. https://buff.ly/31CpWqT
Iraqi soldiers at the K-1 base, which was struck by rockets on Dec. 27.
Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran?
Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events.
nytimes.com
47
1:15 PM - Feb 6, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
44 people are talking about this
U.S. officials insisted to the Times that they have “solid evidence” showing that Khataib Hezbollah carried out the attack, but they have not released any of this evidence to the public or to Iraqi officials.
“We have requested the American side to share with us any information, any evidence, but they have not sent us any information,” Lt. Gen. Muhammad al-Bayati, chief of staff for former Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, told the Times.
Ilan Goldenberg, Middle East security director at the Center for a New American Security think tank, tweeted that the U.S. Congress “must ask questions about this and get the intel.”
Responsible Statecraft managing editor Benjamin Armbruster agreed.
“Congress needs to investigate ASAP,” Armbruster tweeted.
==
An admission of colossal failure’: US dropped record number of bombs on Afghanistan in 2019Eoin Higgins / Common Dreams
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/calls-intensify-for-hearings-on-us-officials-who-lied-to-american-people-about-endless-afghan-war-lets-bring-rumsfeld-in
no lnx
Calls intensify for hearings on US officials who lied to American people about endless Afghan War: ‘Let’s bring Rumsfeld in’
120 aha
kind of scary 6 drivers to war:
1) BO remark there's just a penchant/bias for it in DC
2) red calf dominionist lunacy 3 p's?!
3) general islamophobia, but boosted by bannon clash of of BS
terrorism fear/hyped, vote gop to keep you safe/nat'l security traf BS ploy now breaking down?
4) djt accuse BO of wag the dog war, so projection, plus IMPEACHMENT
5? legit fear of iran hegemony? why do we care? oil? straits of H?
7 saudi pals want it kush? mbs?
==
==
see for pol
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trump-has-never-been-anti-war-if-you-understand-the-history-of-gop-foreign-policy-hes-always-been-just-another-republican/
no lnx
Trump has never been anti-war. If you understand the history of GOP foreign policy, he’s always been just another Republican
Written by Matthew Rozsa / Salon January 12, 2020
American foreign policy has always been dictated by the wants and whims of powerful business interests.
As I plowed through my favorite works of historical literature to trace the evolution of Republican foreign policy through alternating periods of imperialism and isolationism, that fact was unavoidable. We are a capitalist society, and the dictates of our business community trump all other considerations in shaping public policy. It is foolish to pretend there was ever a time when those financial interests were not critical in determining our foreign policy.
Having said that, there is still a crucial difference between our isolationist and interventionist eras — as well as a way of understanding how Donald Trump, for all his efforts to depicting himself as something new on the foreign policy scene, is just a continuation of the status quo that has existed for the last century or so.
1. Republican foreign policy was isolationist from the party’s founding through the 1890s.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854, and acquired national power until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Not surprisingly, Lincoln’s administration was so focused on winning the Civil War that foreign policy was an afterthought; to the extent that the 16th president took a serious interest in foreign affairs, it was in making sure that the Confederacy did not receive assistance from world powers like the British and French empires.
His successor, Andrew Johnson, was the first Republican president to make a major foreign policy move. (Admittedly, calling Johnson a Republican is problematic: He had been a lifelong Democrat, and became so estranged from Republicans in Congress he was eventually impeached.) In 1867, Johnson allowed Secretary of State William Seward to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7 million. This acquisition, which was roughly one-fifth the size of the rest of the United States, went a long way toward furthering America’s ambition to become an empire in the Western Hemisphere. At the time, however, it was ridiculed as “Seward’s folly,” with many in the press arguing that he had wasted taxpayer money on a frozen wasteland. It wasn’t until gold was discovered in Alaska in 1898 — an important year in American foreign policy for other reasons — that Seward’s wisdom became apparent.
After Seward, however, America’s post-Civil War foreign policy was defined by isolationism. The Civil War had made Americans weary of bloodshed. During this time some smaller imperialist overtures were undertaken, such as Ulysses S. Grant’s attempt to annex Santo Domingo (as the future Dominican Republic was then known) and Benjamin Harrison’s support for a coup led by American businessmen who overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy.
For the most part, though, the guiding rule of American foreign policy was to follow the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which held that the U.S. would protect the Western Hemisphere from foreign invasion and otherwise stay out of foreign affairs, and the dictates of George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796, which similarly urged that the nation resist foreign entanglements).
2. Republican foreign policy went through an imperialist phase after the Spanish-American War in 1898.
If there is one book you should read after looking at this article, it is Kristin L. Hoganson’s “Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars.” Hoganson discusses how cultural concerns about a decline in American masculinity during the late 19th and early 20th century bled over into politics. William McKinley, despite not being inclined toward imperialism by nature, was so harshly criticized for refusing to wage war with Spain in order to “liberate” Cuba and the Philippines that the pressure caused him to declare war after the USS Maine exploded in 1898 — an explosion that was blamed on the Spanish Empire but is now believed to have been an accident.
This was a turning point in the history of American foreign policy. America’s victory of Spain meant that our nation began to take on the trappings of a true world power for the first time. Matters were exacerbated under Theodore Roosevelt, for whom imperialism wasn’t a reluctant “obligation” but a grand adventure. Roosevelt may be deified today, but his blatantly racist and jingoistic philosophy solidified the imperialist ventures that had begun under McKinley. He oversaw the building of the Panama Canal and established a “Roosevelt corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine that would allow America to intervene in Western Hemisphere nations on economic issues. Even his successor, William Howard Taft, implemented a policy of “Dollar Diplomacy” in which he blatantly admitted that American financial interests would dictate its foreign policy decisions.
When World War I broke out in Europe, the Republican Party was split between the internationalist faction that wanted the U.S. to get involved and the isolationist faction eager to stay out of the bloody conflict. Because public opinion was overwhelmingly against American involvement, the isolationists prevailed. Then came the Zimmerman Telegram in 1917, which revealed that Germany had tried to seduce Mexico’s support by offering to give back the lands America had seized during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). At that point, Republicans joined the rest of the country in supporting American involvement on behalf of the Allies during World War I.
3. Republican foreign policy was isolationist and anti-immigrant from the end of World War I until Pearl Harbor.
After World War I, Woodrow Wilson tried to create an international alliance called the League of Nations that would prevent another world war from breaking out. His plan was met with suspicion by the leader of the Senate Republicans, Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, and the GOP emerged as staunchly isolationist in response to Wilson’s sudden intense internationalism. The Republican presidential candidate in 1920, Sen. Warren G. Harding of Ohio, ran on his opposition to the League of Nations and won what was then the biggest popular vote majority in history. Not surprisingly, he and his two successors — Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover — continued his larger tradition of being avowedly isolationist.
One striking parallel between this period and the era of Trump is in its open hostility toward immigrants. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were all supporters of the Johnson-Reed Act, which established quotas for individuals from Southern and Eastern European countries, and outright banned immigration from Asian countries (many of whom had already been barred under previous immigration laws). It isn’t much of a leap to go from the prejudices of that era to Trump’s open hostility toward immigrants from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. It was rooted in an ingrained xenophobia among the nation’s more powerful demographic classes, fueled by obvious racism.
Not all of the Republicans from this era were isolationist, however. The GOP’s 1940 presidential candidate, Wendell Willkie, defeated challengers who opposed doing anything to help the Allies during World War II and instead pushed an internationalist perspective. In 1952 — when it looked like one of the Senate’s premier isolationists, Robert Taft, was poised to get the Republican presidential nomination — the GOP instead chose Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, an internationalist and war hero who became the first Republican president in 20 years.
4. World War II and the Cold War changed everything.
By then, however, World War II had already fundamentally transformed American society. The trauma of Pearl Harbor convinced the American government, and its people, that the nation needed to have a strong military and play a leading role in world affairs. The growth of the Soviet Union, and the spread of socialist or communist revolutions throughout the world, convinced Americans that they faced an existential threat during the Cold War. After the Cold War ran its course in 1991, Islamist terrorists became a new existential threat that (purportedly) called for a strong military-industrial complex.
Despite warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex near the end of his presidency, Eisenhower believed in a robust military that used America’s clout to shape foreign affairs. This philosophy was shared by every Republican president that followed him: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush the father and George W. Bush the son. The names of the countries where those presidents waged war have varied — Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Some of them were more favorable toward international institutions than others: There’s a considerable contrast between George H.W. Bush and his son on that issue, for example. But overall, the idea was that the U.S. had both national security interests and ideological responsibility as the leader of the “free world,” in contrast to fascism, Soviet expansion and Islamic terrorism.
- Aside from a handful of minor issues, Trump is basically continuing the foreign policies of the last 80 years of Republican political leaders. He ain’t that special.
I will leave it to the psychologists to speculate why Trump has chosen a handful of issues on which to be non-normative. It’s a subject I’ve discussed with one of his favorite Fox personalities, Steve Hilton, and I’ve sought comment from the White House with minimal acknowledgment. Either way, it is fair to identify a few semi-arbitrary issues where Trump’s ideas differ from those of mainstream Republicans since World War II.
Trade is a big one. The last president to actively promote a protectionist perspective on trade was Herbert Hoover, who is associated with the Great Depression. Trump also likes to make a big deal about his reluctance to participate in multinational organizations like NATO, and tends to cozy up to authoritarian leaders like Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Kim Jong-un, Rodrigo Duterte and Vladimir Putin. He pulled U.S. forces largely out of Syria and generally appears to make decisions at random, with no consistent philosophy at work. Or rather, if there is one, it’s rooted in the character flaws of one man rather than a body of thought about how the world works.
Where it has counted, though, Trump has been a traditional Republican. He pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal long before the assassination of Qassem Soleimani; he has pumped up the military budget; and his contempt for international institutions like the UN was foreshadowed by presidents like George W. Bush. Let’s not pretend that Trump is the first Republican president who has made deals with disreputable foreign regimes (think of Ronald Reagan and apartheid South Africa). Trump’s “America First” and “nationalist” rhetoric may sound like Republicans of the 1920s, but he is only amplifying the prejudices that his party has always held.
==
bernie and ro tried to precent action vs iran?
Omar and Lee announce war powers resolution to stop Trump — call Soleimani assassination an ‘act of war’ without authorizationJon Queally, The Conversation
==
==
‘If you are wondering who benefits’: Weapons makers see stocks surge as Trump moves closer to war with Iran
Almost immediately after the United States assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike Thursday night, major American weapons manufacturers and defense contractors—from Northrop Grumman to Lockheed Martin to
==
Why the Afghanistan papers shows we never learned Noam Chomsky’s lesson from VietnamVijay Prashad / Independent Media Inst
==
rummy?
|
A newly revealed batch of government documents reveals senior U.S.… |
==
an 1219
America’s Afghanistan anti-drug boondoggle nears the $9 Billion markPhillip Smith / Independent Media inst
==
driver on trump seal pardon? war crimes 2x called them warriors ~ deep state?! (rudy is a warrior, not acting on my djt behalf, indep go-getter)
, U.S. Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer (no relation to the white nationalist of the same name) was forced outafter losing a power struggle with Fox News host Pete Hegseth.Hegseth has been aggressively lobbying the Trump administration to intervene in the cases of multiple convicted war criminals, including Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who had been accused of war crimes during a 2017 deployment to Iraq. Hegseth devoted numerous Fox & Friends segments to their causes, repeatedly hosted their family members and lawyers to ask the president for pardons, and privately urged the president to do so.
Gallagher was acquitted in July on charges related to the murder of a teenage prisoner of war, but was demoted after being convicted of posing for photos with the body. While Trump pardoned the Navy SEAL and restored his rank, Navy officials subsequently sought to convene a review board to remove Gallagher from his elite unit and strip him of his Trident pin. This process reportedly continued even after Trump tweeted his disapproval of the move.
Following several attacks from Hegseth on Spencer and the Navy during the course of Sunday morning’s Fox & Friends broadcast, Trump announced his displeasure with the Navy and Spencer’s termination on Twitter.
==
===
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iran-trump-america-permanent-war-formula-850712/
_{
}_
Next Contestant, Iran: Meet America’s Permanent War Formula
When it comes to starting wars, we don’t even bother to change the script anymore
_{
}_
By MATT TAIBBI
==
written by Terry H. Schwadron / DC Report May 27, 2019
With problems mounting at home, Trump rattles his sabre at a long-time foe.
Here we go.
In words that sounded remarkably like the build-up to the war in Iraq, Pentagon officials were finishing plans for presentation to the White House this morning seeking a presidential decision to send up to 10,000 troops to the Middle East to stymie any ill plans by Iran.
As widely reported in the news media, the plans were extremely fuzzy, as has the explanation for what exactly the need is, what has constituted provocation from Iran.
According to The Associated Press, the military will present plans for up to 10,000 more troops to the Middle East, additional Patriot missile batteries, more ships and increased equipment to monitor Iran. No decision has been made, and, of course, with as mercurial a president as Trump, it is unclear whether any or all of the requests will be approved.
As recently as Tuesday, Trump said he did not want war with Iran. Then he told a rally that any provocation would be the “end” of Iran. You decide.
Iran Steamed
Meanwhile, Iran is reportedly pretty steamed over all the war talk, and, diplomats speaking to The Washington Post are telling all they need to abandon a strategy of restraint and start pushing back against the White House.
Apparently, that means that in the face of tightened economic sanctions and military threats, “Iran is now seeking to highlight the costs it could also impose on the United States — for instance, by disrupting the world’s oil supply — without taking actions likely to trigger an all-out war.”
The chances of a misstep, a mischaracterization, a misreading of moves make the Middle East suddenly seem much more a tinderbox than usual.
Congress Confused
Meanwhile, Congress members who were briefed by the administration this week, frankly, left informational meetings confused about what had been old Iranian abuses, older complaints about Iran or fresh signs of war-like provocation.
In light of all of this, here’s what occurs to me:
Trump campaigned against unwanted and unneeded wars in the Middle East. He has taken glee in withdrawing all troops from Iraq, only to then turn around and keep some, and hastening the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He made belligerent remarks about North Korea, Venezuela and Iran, then withdrew all. As commander-in-chief, he is at best someone interested in the appearance of strength as if boasting can chase away actual military issues. Promises made, promises kept? How about Promises made, love the local strongman unless he is blocking our way to more oil?
Trump’s America First foreign policy has isolated the United States as it approaches the Iranian problem. Even if he deploys an estimated 120,000 troops – to do what, exactly? – the United States needs more troops from its usual coalition partners, the same partners he has criticized and distanced from the United States.
Trump is isolated at home even more than among overseas allies. He lacks real congressional allies outside of Republicans who fear that he will undercut their re-election, by choice, he lacks a full bench of thinkers and strategists in the White House, he will be blocked at every turn by Democrats who think the president is less than fully rational. So, he is relying on gut and on the voices of John Bolton, who has wanted war with Iran for a generation, an acting defense secretary and perhaps Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who may be doing what he thinks Trump wants.
Trump dumped the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, which he says now he really wants, but only if Iran also stops all other forms of aggression in the region, something for which there is now zero chance.
Under severe political pressure from multiple House investigations; probes by the state of New York, the Southern District of New York and Eastern Virginia; and scrutiny by 24 Democratic presidential candidates, Trump is lashing out like a treed cat.
Trump, who has decried intelligence agencies from his first week in office, now finds that he must rely on exactly those agencies to make a decision about deploying U.S. troops, the exact deployments he campaigned against as a waste of human and financial resources for no real purpose.
Under those combined circumstances, you and I are supposed to accept a decision that may start rolling out today about deploying our sons and daughters to fight a war with no clear guidelines or goals, based on evidence that apparently is funky and flaky.
Is this how we Make America Great?
==
‘This is big’: 76 retired US generals and diplomats warn Trump against war with Iran
President Donald Trump often says he listens to military generals…
===
gulf war 3?
https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/the-trump-administration-beats-the-drum-for-conflict-with-iran-as-republicans-call-for-unity-in-an-easy-war/
On Wednesday morning,the State Department issued a “Do Not Travel” advisoryfor Americans considering going to Iraq, ordered nonessential personnel to leave the country, and warned of a “high risk for violence and kidnapping.” This action comes after the United States indicated that Iran was behind attacks on four oil tankers just outside the Persian Gulf. Iran has denied those accusations, but as tensions in the region increase, Republicans are lining up to spread the message that war with Iranwould be easy, and that it’s time foreveryone to get behind Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton declared that the United States could win a war in Iran with just “Two strikes: the first strike and a last strike.” This is completely at odds with the evaluation of military strategists. There is little doubt about the ability of the U.S. military to overcome that of Iran in the field, but the military of Iran is muchmore capable than that of Iraq, where the “easy” victory has been followed by well over a decade of low-grade warfare, bombings, and terror attacks in which over 4,400 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives and over 31,000 have been wounded—often severely. In addition, estimates of civilian deaths range from 150,000 to over 650,000. In addition, the war in Iraq generated an increase in international terrorism, including acting as a primary factor in the rise of ISIS. And that was a war that was supposed to be a walkover on all counts.
Iraq’s military was a fraction of what it had been before the 1991 Gulf War when the U.S. invaded in 2003. Its fleet of armored vehicles was aging, short on parts, and completely outmatched by American tanks. The tiny Iraqi Air Force had not one plane from later than the 1980s, and in fact not a single plane got off the ground to challenge the U.S. in the air. None of these things is true of Iran. Not only is the Iranian military generally modern and in good repair, but the nation has also conducted an aggressive program of missile development, including short-range missiles that can be fired from mobile platforms. Included in this are a number of special anti-ship missiles developed especially because Iran expectedto be threatened by U.S. carriers. In addition, Iran sports a fleet of “midget” submarines especially designed to create havoc in the Gulf and act against both military and civilian craft. While there is little doubt the U.S. would overcome organized opposition quickly, it’s much less clear that this could be done without significant losses of equipment and lives, as well as a major disruption of the world economy.
The current increase in tensions with Iran is directly related to Donald Trump’s precipitous unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear treaty—an action that was definitely not supported by other signatories to that treaty. And if the United States believes it will have a coalition of allies going into Iran … it had better think again.
*The New York Times*reports that a British military official—who also happens to be the deputy commander of the coalition fighting ISIS—has stated that he sees “no increased risk from Iran or allied militias,” but the U.S. has fired back to say there are “identified credible threats” that generated the State Department warnings. That’s not to say that European officials and coalition members aren’t seeing aggressive moves in the Middle East. It’s just that those moves have “originated not in Tehran, but in Washington.”
There is an increasing fear that Trump, spurred on by national security adviser John Bolton, thinks that a conflict with Iran could give him a Gulf War-style popularity boost going into 2020. Republicans aren’t making that theory look any weaker by not just manufacturing a case for war, but arguing—already—that it’s time to have Trump’s back in this not-yet-conflict.
On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio issueda series of tweets that started with a claim that the “U.S won’t start a war with Iran, but it will win one that Iran starts.” Rubio continued through a set of statements claiming that “Iran’s proxy forces” in Yemen and Iraq “plan to attack Americans with the intent of inflicting mass casualties,” and that Iran has “spent years” building the ability to attack America through these proxy forces. He provided no evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Rubio then jumped to a new level of odd in spinning a pre-propaganda statement warning that “internal political divisions” in the United States, and the legacy of the Iraq War, will lead “a substantial percentage of Americans” to blame Trump for any war. Because, he says, Iran will use social media to spread this message. Sure, says Rubio, some people might argue that Trump’s pulling out of the treaty without justification might have started this whole series of actions, but just ignore that. Instead, it’s time to show Iran that we are “united.”
Shorter Rubio: If a war starts, it’s not our fault. And even if it is our fault, why are we arguing about whose fault it is anyway? Just support it.
The facts are that Donald Trump has profoundly destabilized not just the Middle East, but the entire world, by showing that America cannot be trusted to abide by the international agreements that it has signed. Pulling out of that treaty not only sparked a potential conflict, but it also all but guaranteed that the United States would go into any such conflict alone.
Any war in Iran should be expected to be an order of magnitude worse than the experience in Iraq—both in the immediate execution and in the aftermath. And no one will be cheering on the United States or providing troops and assistance.
Except, of course, for Saudi Arabia, which is ecstatic about the possibility of Trump taking out its major rival. It appears that someone in the region really has learned about using proxy forces to inflict mass casualties.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/this-right-wing-senator-just-said-the-u-s-could-quickly-win-a-war-against-iran-with-two-strikes/
==
:{What Is Happening at the Venezuelan Embassy Is an Outrage:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:
Medea Benjamin - May 7, 2019 - Local Peace Economy
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2019/05/07/what-is-happening-at-the-venezuelan-embassy-is-an-outrage/
Right here in Washington, D.C., an unprecedented showdown is unfolding. Venezuelan supporters of self-declared interim president Juan Guaido have been trying to take over the Venezuelan Embassy. This goes against international law, the wishes of the government in control in Venezuela, and the dogged determination of a group of U.S. citizens called the Embassy Protection Collective, who have been living in the embassy since April 15.
A takeover of the embassy of a sovereign nation whose government holds power and is recognized by the United Nations would be illegal according to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says that diplomatic premises are inviolable and the receiving State must protect the premises against any “intrusion, disturbance of the peace or impairment of its dignity.”
This has nothing to do with whether one likes Nicolás Maduro or considers the Venezuelan elections fair. My Saudi friends in Washington, D.C., hate Mohammad bin Salman—a man who has never been elected by anyone—but the U.S. government would never let them take over the Saudi Embassy. Chinese dissidents say that “winners” of Chinese rigged elections—with only the Communist Party allowed to exist—should not be recognized by the rest of the world, but they would never get access to the Chinese Embassies. Likewise for dissidents from Egypt, Honduras, Syria, Zambia, Congo, Romania, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.—all countries with highly questionable elections, to put it mildly.
The inflammatory act of handing over the Venezuelan Embassy to Guaidó supporters would also have the potential to dramatically escalate the conflict between the United States and Venezuela. If the Trump administration were to allow this, the Maduro government would likely reciprocate by taking over the U.S. Embassy. This could be just what war hawks John Bolton and Elliott Abrams are looking for as a justification for a U.S. military intervention.
Determined to avoid another war, a group of U.S. peace activists sought and received permission from the legitimate Venezuelan government to form an Embassy Protection Collective. Since April 15, a group has been living in the embassy, sleeping on couches and floors, while outside supporters have been providing supplies and joining them for meals and educational events.
At first the Venezuelan diplomats were still working in the building, but the State Department ordered them to leave the country by April 25. Since then, we have been alone, holding the embassy so that a diplomatic solution can be worked out similar to the situation with Iran, where the U.S. Interests Section in Tehran has been operating under the Swiss Embassyand the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, D.C., is operating under the Pakistani Embassy.
On May 1, however, our peaceful presence was violently besieged by angry Guaidó supporters. Designed to coincide with Guaidó’s call for a May 1 uprising, his U.S. representative Carlos Vecchio showed up for a press conference and quickly left, leaving behind an unruly, violent mob. This group has been surrounding the embassy since then, creating mayhem and not allowing food, medicines or supplies to the people inside.
Even more shocking, the Secret Service, which is tasked with guarding embassies, has allowed this to happen. They have had a constant presence at the embassy since May 1 but have stood by as this group damages the building and threatens the peace activists inside and outside. They have allowed the opposition to bang on the doors with sledgehammers to try to break in, post signs all over the property against the wishes of the legal owners, physically attack people trying to get food inside, and destroy and steal the property of the Embassy Protection Collective (food, placards, signs, canopy). In violation of the city’s noise ordinance, the mob has been blasting sirens all day long at decibels so high that even the Secret Service police have been wearing earplugs. They block the sidewalks and all public passages. They have set up 10 canopies and 3 tents to surround the entire building. When we tried to set up a canopy, we were attacked by Guaidó supporters, but it was our member, Tighe Barry, who was arrested and accused of pushing a Secret Service officer.
The Secret Service has a public statement saying that no individuals, medicine or food have been prevented from entering the building. We ask anyone who believes this to go to the embassy and try to deliver a package to the people inside.Even packages sent by the U.S. Postal Service are not allowed in.Every entrance is blocked by opponents, and the Secret Service does nothing to stop them. On the contrary, supporters who have tried to bring food have been arrested. This was the case of CODEPINK organizer Ariel Gold. When she found all entrances blocked, she threw bread into an empty ramp outside a door and was arrested for “throwing missiles.” When we tied a package to a rope to send food up through a window,three of us were physically assaulted, and despite clear video evidence, the police refused to arrest our attacker.
Our people inside are without sufficient food and other critical supplies. They are not allowed to freely exit and enter the building. They sleep at night with a terrible sense of insecurity, worried that the angry mob will break in and attack. But we remain resolute, those of us on the inside and those of us supporting them on the outside, and we demand that our government respect U.S. and international law. The Secret Service must protect the embassy and the people who are lawfully on embassy property until the two governments come to an agreement about their premises. At that time, the Embassy Protection Collective will happily dissolve and leave the embassy, happy because we can go back to our lives but happy, most of all, because we will have helped to give John Bolton and Elliott Abrams one less reason to drag our nation into another war.
Medea Benjamin is the co-director of CODEPINK and a member of the Embassy Protection Collective.
Source: Independent Media Institute
This article was produced by :{Local Peace Economy:(style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:, a project of the Independent Media Institute