Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?
- Thread starter Cosmos
- Start date
Schumer and Pelosi looked and sounded like idiots in that press conference. I'm sure their base thought they were grand and are salivating for chaos if it brings down the bad orange man.
If Trump is controlled by the Deep State, all the teeth gnashing and end of the world hyperbole regarding Syria and the wall is interesting.
The wall I can understand as open borders facilitates the drugs and human trafficking the Deep State is so fond of making money from. (The same with Syria if the White Helmets and Israel are left to do their dirty work.) Trump's wanting a wall may be all theater and the Deep State will get what it wants in the end. After all, the Deep State knows how to dig tunnels and underground bases. If the wall gets built, it's to keep the sheep in, not DS assets out.
If Trump is controlled by the Deep State, all the teeth gnashing and end of the world hyperbole regarding Syria and the wall is interesting.
The wall I can understand as open borders facilitates the drugs and human trafficking the Deep State is so fond of making money from. (The same with Syria if the White Helmets and Israel are left to do their dirty work.) Trump's wanting a wall may be all theater and the Deep State will get what it wants in the end. After all, the Deep State knows how to dig tunnels and underground bases. If the wall gets built, it's to keep the sheep in, not DS assets out.
‘Bye, Felicia’: Did Michelle Obama Just Mock US First Lady Melania Trump on TV?
My jaw hurts from hitting the floor upon reading the below article. While Barack was dropping bombs on civilians, Michelle was pretty much poisoning Americans with her school meals programme. That's a really dumb reason to feel superior. But hey, as long as facts and science hating liberal hypocrites cheer at her uncultured nonsense - Michelle doesn't seem to care that she let her lack of class and grace slip out from behind the mask.
A quote from the article: "[Y]ou can hate Donald Trump and still admire his wife Melania for the way she is conducting herself, perhaps even more so given she has had to endure massively more scorn, ridicule and shame over all her husband's scandals." Precisely. I like Melania for her class and dignity. Michelle has shown - yet again - she does not have any of these.
The "Bye Felicia" comment can be watched at 3:32.
My jaw hurts from hitting the floor upon reading the below article. While Barack was dropping bombs on civilians, Michelle was pretty much poisoning Americans with her school meals programme. That's a really dumb reason to feel superior. But hey, as long as facts and science hating liberal hypocrites cheer at her uncultured nonsense - Michelle doesn't seem to care that she let her lack of class and grace slip out from behind the mask.
A quote from the article: "[Y]ou can hate Donald Trump and still admire his wife Melania for the way she is conducting herself, perhaps even more so given she has had to endure massively more scorn, ridicule and shame over all her husband's scandals." Precisely. I like Melania for her class and dignity. Michelle has shown - yet again - she does not have any of these.
The "Bye Felicia" comment can be watched at 3:32.
‘Bye, Felicia’: Did Michelle Obama Just Mock US First Lady Melania Trump on TV?
My jaw hurts from hitting the floor upon reading the below article. While Barack was dropping bombs on civilians, Michelle was pretty much poisoning Americans with her school meals programme. That's a really dumb reason to feel superior. But hey, as long as facts and science hating liberal hypocrites cheer at her uncultured nonsense - Michelle doesn't seem to care that she let her lack of class and grace slip out from behind the mask.
A quote from the article: "[Y]ou can hate Donald Trump and still admire his wife Melania for the way she is conducting herself, perhaps even more so given she has had to endure massively more scorn, ridicule and shame over all her husband's scandals." Precisely. I like Melania for her class and dignity. Michelle has shown - yet again - she does not have any of these.
The "Bye Felicia" comment can be watched at 3:32.
Doesn't help that Jimmy Fallon is such a bootlicker.
bootlicker - someone who humbles himself as a sign of respect; who behaves as if he had no self-respect.
Attachments
angelburst29
The Living Force
Sun Dec 23, 2018 - Trump Cancels Christmas Trip over Shutdown
Farsnews
The White House announced on Saturday that President Donald Trump will not take his scheduled Christmas vacation in South Florida, citing the government shutdown.
“Due to the shutdown, President Trump will remain in Washington, D.C. and the first lady will return from Florida so they can spend Christmas together,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, World News reported.
“I will not be going to Florida because of the Shutdown - Staying in the White House! #MAGA,” Trump tweeted the news himself later Saturday.
Trump had planned to spend 16 days at his Mar-a-Lago club with his family for the holidays, but he stated on Friday he would remain in the nation’s capital if Congress could not reach an agreement to avert a partial government shutdown. But he did not say at the time how long he planned to stay in Washington and there was some speculation he might still make the trip to Florida for Christmas if a lengthy shutdown appeared to be in the works.
The scenario played out on Saturday, with the Senate adjourning without a spending deal in place. Senators are not expected to meet again until December 27, meaning the shutdown is all but assured to last at least four more days.
Trump did not appear willing to strike a quick compromise with Democrats, digging in on Saturday on his demand for border-wall funding. He lunched on Saturday afternoon with his conservative Republican allies at the White House in a show of unity.
The shutdown is the latest evidence of dysfunction in Washington and does not bode well for next year, when Democrats will have a stronger hand as they take control of the House of Representatives.
Trump sought to blame Democrats for the shutdown, who responded by reminding him that he had said last week he would be “proud” to shut down key parts of the federal government in order to get funding for the wall.
On Friday, he warned of “a very long” government shutdown if the Senate did not approve his demand for $5 billion toward funding his long-promised wall.
lilies
The Living Force
Shanahan
Heads-up! We have reached an important marker event. President Donald Trump has announced that his deputy Patrick Shanahan will serve as acting defense secretary from January 1. Trump wasn't even willing to wait for the resigning US defense chief James Mattis to finish his term.
It looks like we will get to know the Shanahan name really well in the future. His decisions are set to leave heavy footprints in history for all of us to bear witness!
Shanaham in the news #1.: Fri, 17 Mar 2017
Business as usual? Trump picks Boeing executive for Mattis deputy as Pentagon gets budget boost.
Shanaham in the news #2.: Fri, 16 Nov 2018
Heads-up! We have reached an important marker event. President Donald Trump has announced that his deputy Patrick Shanahan will serve as acting defense secretary from January 1. Trump wasn't even willing to wait for the resigning US defense chief James Mattis to finish his term.
It looks like we will get to know the Shanahan name really well in the future. His decisions are set to leave heavy footprints in history for all of us to bear witness!
Shanaham in the news #1.: Fri, 17 Mar 2017
Business as usual? Trump picks Boeing executive for Mattis deputy as Pentagon gets budget boost.
Shanaham in the news #2.: Fri, 16 Nov 2018
"Irritating": Pentagon fails first ever audit, "accuracy" problems in $2.7 trillion organization"Irritating": Pentagon fails first ever audit, "accuracy" problems in $2.7 trillion organization
Last edited:
angelburst29
The Living Force
Information Wars December 25, 2018
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’
Hailed by Congress and the media as defenders of democracy, high-tech Russiagate hustlers Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox have been exposed for waging “an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation” to swing the 2017 Alabama senate race.
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’ - Grayzone Project
On December 17, two reports detailing ongoing Russian interference operations commissioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee were made public. They generated a week’s worth of headlines and sent members of Congress and cable news pundits into a Cold War frenzy. According to the report, everything from the Green Party’s Jill Stein to Instagram to Pokemon Go to the African American population had been used and confused by the deceptive Facebook pages of a private Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency.
Nevermind that 56% of the troll farm’s pages appeared after the election, that 25% of them were seen by no one, or that their miniscule online presence paled in comparison to the millions of dollars spent on social media by the two major presidential campaigns and their supporters to sway voters. This was an act of war that demanded immediate government action.
According to Sen. Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the reports were “a wake up call” and a “bombshell” that was certain to bring “long-overdue guardrails when it comes to social media”. His Republican counterpart on the committee, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr, hailed the research papers as “proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information sharing between the social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them.”
Mark Warner ✔ @MarkWarner
https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/1074737305989144576
Incredible. These bombshell reports demonstrate just how far Russia went to exploit the fault lines of our society and divide Americans, in an attempt to undermine and manipulate our democracy. Here's what we’ve learned:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/russia-favored-trump-targeted-african-americans-election-meddling-reports-say-n948731 …
https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1074737305989144576
1:45 PM - Dec 17, 2018
Russia favored Trump, targeted African-Americans with election meddling, reports say
The Russians set up 30 Facebook pages targeting black Americans, researchers found, and 10 YouTube channels that posted 571 videos related to police violence against African-Americans.
nbcnews.com
But the authors of one of the reports soon suffered a major blow to their credibility when it was revealed that they had engaged in what they called a “Russian style” online disinformation operation aimed to swing a hotly contested special senate election. The embarrassing revelation has already resulted in one of the authors having his Facebook page suspended.
The well-funded deception was carried out by New Knowledge, a private cyber intelligence firm founded by two self-styled disinformation experts who are veterans of the Obama administration: Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox.
‘It may be designed to manipulate you’
Morgan began his career as a product manager at AOL before founding a series of start ups, some with funding from the United States Agency for International Development and Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network. Once a Brookings Institution researcher and special advisor to the Obama White House and State Department, Morgan founded Data for Democracy, a volunteer organization said to use “public data to monitor the election system for signs of fraud.” Morgan also developed technology for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the arm of the Department of Defense created for basic, applied technological research, and futuristic war toys.
Rising through the ranks of the national security apparatus, Morgan ultimately emerged as a go-to source for credulous reporters seeking to blame Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on Russian disinformation.
In an interview with the local CBS affiliate in Austin, Texas, Morgan told viewers that feelings of discontent were telltale signs that they had been duped by Russian disinformation. “If it makes you feel too angry or really provokes that type of almost tribal response, then it may be designed to manipulate you… People should be concerned about things that encourage them to change their behavior,” he warned.
Crafting projects, Islam, and Russian propaganda – Data for Democracy – Medium
Fox, for his part, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency and was a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) military unit. JSOC is notorious for its spree of atrocities across the Middle East including digging their bullets out of dead pregnant women’s bodies in Afghanistan. Comparatively little information is available about Fox’s background.
Since receiving an $11 million investment from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports.
The report, titled “The Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,” was over seen by Renee DiResta, a former Wall Street trader and tech specialist who was recruited by Obama’s State Department to devise strategies for combating online ISIS propaganda. The New York Times described DiResta as one among a small group of “hobbyists” who “meticulously logged data and published reports on how easy it was to manipulate social media platforms.”
The hobby lobby of online obsessives converged at New Knowledge this year to sound the alarm on supposed Russian disinformation. In a New York Times op-ed published as Americans went to cast their votes in the midterm elections, Morgan and Fox alleged that the Kremlin was secretly running hundreds of propaganda websites in an effort to swing the outcomes. That assertion ran counter to the narrative the two operatives had been spinning out just months before.
In an interview earlier in the year, Ryan Fox suggested that despite the Trump administration’s multiple rounds of sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin was so satisfied with the state of U.S. affairs that the Kremlin had actually cut back on its supposed interference. “Strategically, are they content with the way things are? Does it play in their favor to do anything right now? That’s a valid question,” Fox said. “Keep up the momentum, keep poking away. But do they have to implement drastic measures like hacking the DNC and exposing thousands of emails? Probably not.”
More recently, Fox claimed to have identified hundreds of Russian-controlled Facebook and Twitter accounts active in France’s Yellow Vest movement, which has raged against the country’s neoliberal leadership and sparked anxiety among centrist elites across the Atlantic.
The Wall Street Journal ✔ @WSJ
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1073819973074739200
“There has been some suspect activity,” a French cybersecurity official said. “We are in the process of looking at its impact.” https://on.wsj.com/2EzeS5c
https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1073819973074739200
1:00 AM - Dec 15, 2018
France Probes Any Moscow Role in Yellow-Vest Movement
French security services are investigating if the Kremlin had a role in social media activity that has spread misinformation about the protest movement that has become the most serious threat to...
wsj.com
However, Fox produced no evidence to support his incendiary accusation, prompting reporters to qualify his assertions as “very likely” and write that he merely “believes” Russian interference took place.
Drafting the dubious bot dashboard
Morgan is also one the developers of the Hamilton 68 dashboard, an online project dedicated to inflaming public outrage over online Russian bots. Funded by the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy – which is itself backed by NATO and USAID – Hamilton 68 claims to track hundreds of accounts supposedly linked to Russian influence operations. The effort has largely succeeded in drawing positive media attention despite one of its founders, Clint Watts, admitting that the Twitter accounts it follows may actually be real people who are not Russian at all.
When Morgan was asked what techniques Hamilton 68 uses to identify Russian influence operations, he offered a confident-sounding but ultimately empty answer: “We developed some techniques for determining who matters in a conversation… Using some of those techniques, we’ve identified a subset of accounts that we’re very confident are core to furthering the Russian narrative in response to mainstream events.”
Because Morgan and his colleagues have explicitly refused to name the accounts monitored by Hamilton 68, his claims can never be proven.
In a lengthy profile of the musicologist-turned-New Knowledge “online detective” Kris Shaffer, Foreign Policy described the supposed methodology he employed to identify Russian disinfo operations: “By working with massive datasets of tweets, Facebook posts, and online articles, he is able to map links between accounts, similarities in the messages they post, and shared computer infrastructure.”
The article added an extraordinarily revealing disclaimer: “This method of analysis is in its infancy, remains a fairly blunt instrument, and still requires human intervention. It sometimes mistakes real people who post anti-imperialist arguments about U.S. foreign policy for Kremlin trolls, for example.”
It may have been that New Knowledge had no knowledge at all of Kremlin botnets, but their reports were nonetheless treated as gospel by droves of credulous reporters eager to make their name in the frenzied atmosphere of Russiagate.
“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation”
According to an internal New Knowledge report first seen by the New York Times, the firm carried out a multi-faceted influence operation designed to undermine a 2017 bid by right-wing Republican former state supreme court judge Roy Moore for an open Alabama senate seat. By its own admission, New Knowledge’s campaign capitalized on the the sexual assault allegations against Moore to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans.
To accomplish this, the New Knowledge team created a Facebook page aimed at appealing to conservative Alabamians by encouraging them to endorse an obscure patio supply salesman-turned-write-in candidate named Mac Watson. They hoped the subterfuge would peel votes away from Moore. It was precisely the kind of tactic that New Knowledge claims Russian troll farms carry out to sow divisions among the American electorate.
Morgan told the New York Times the effort stopped there. But the New Knowledge report says the Facebook page “boosted” Watson’s campaign and even arranged interviews for him with The Montgomery Advertiser and the Washington Post. At the same time, Watson’s Twitter following mysteriously jumped from 100 to about 10,000.
.
One of the articles New Knowledge took credit for during its disinformation campaign.
Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one that responded to it. “You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you”, they wrote. New Knowledge then “asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters.”
While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the page disappeared the day after the vote. “It was weird,” Watson commented to the New York Times. “The whole thing was weird.”
New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore’s campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat Moore was secretly backed by Russia.
The Montgomery Observer first reported the alleged link: Russian invasion? Roy Moore sees spike in Twitter followers from land of Putin. From there, it was picked up by Mother Jones, whose headline read: Russian Propagandists Are Pushing for Roy Moore to Win. But there was no proof of any Russian connection to the accounts. To bolster its evidence-free claim, Mother Jones simply turned to Hamilton 68, the highly suspect Russian influence monitoring system that Morgan helped design.
Today, as can be seen below, Mother Jones is using a bogus story generated by a disinformation campaign to raise funds for more Russiagate coverage.
As the Russian bot narrative peaked, Moore blamed the Jones campaign for manufacturing the scare. “It’s not surprising that they’d choose the favorite topic of MSNBC and the Fake News outlets — the Russia conspiracy. Democrats can’t win this election on the issues and their desperation is on full display.”
Moore’s opponent, Jones, said he had no knowledge of the operation.
Moore was roundly mocked in liberal circles as a conspiratorial crank, but New Knowledge’s internal report contained a stunning omission: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” its authors revealed.
While the New York Times says the internal report does not confirm that New Knowledge purchased the bot account themselves, the accounts’ flagrant use of Cyrillic language and profile pictures of famous singers including Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne strongly suggest that whoever bought them went to extreme lengths to leave the appearance of a Russian hand.
Disinfo ops to “strengthen American democracy”
The Alabama disinformation campaign was carried out through a network of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and former Obama administration officials who have joined the private sector to leverage liberal anti-Trump outrage into profits.
Billionaire Reid Hoffman, who co-founded the employment networking site LinkedIn, provided $100,000 for the black ops campaign. The money was then pipelined through American Engagement Technologies, which is headed by Mikey Dickerson, a former Google engineer who founded the United State Digital Service. Dickerson is also Executive Director of the New Data Project, an organization dedicated to “testing new approaches” and “serving as an advanced technology research lab for progressives.”
A colleague of Hoffman’s claimed the purpose of his investments was to “strengthen American democracy.”
Since the New York Times’ exposé, Facebook released a statement announcing its suspension of “five accounts run by a multiple individuals for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior,” including Morgan’s account. The social media platform has opened an investigation, though it has not revealed what the other pages are or who operated them.
The headline of the New York Times story about the Facebook suspensions appeared to have been crafted to keep the focus on Russia while deflecting scrutiny from the group of Democratic Party-linked hustlers that orchestrated the disinformation operation. It read: “Facebook Closes 5 Accounts Tied to Russia-Like Tactics in Alabama Senate Race.”
For his part, Sen. Jones has demanded an investigation. “I think we’ve all focused too much on just the Russians and not picked up on the fact that some nefarious groups, whether they’re right or left, could take those same playbooks and start interfering with the elections for their own benefit,” he said. “I’d like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible.”
Facing an inquiry for possible violations of election laws, Morgan issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming he “did not participate in any campaign to influence the public and any characterization to the contrary misrepresents the research goals, methods and outcome of the project.”
Jonathon Morgan ✔ @jonathonmorgan
https://twitter.com/jonathonmorgan/status/1075575821362958337
My statement on this evening's NYT article.
9:17 PM - Dec 19, 2018
While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical campaign of online deception against the American public, while presenting marketing themselves as the guardians against from foreign interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as they have.
angelburst29
The Living Force
December 26, 2018 - Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks
Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks - Global Research
A Christmas present for the American and Syrian people.
President Donald Trump’s order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday’s resignation by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details, suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media. Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.
The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times featured a lead editorial entitled “Jim Mattis was right” while neocon twitter accounts blazed with indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others, tweeted that the end is nigh.
During the day preceding Mattis’s dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: “In Syria retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders.” It would be difficult to imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. “Retreat,” “rebuffs” and “blindsides” are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that “Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!”
Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the expulsion of that government’s principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria would be a good thing for the United States and also for its “allies” in the region even though there is no way to “win” and no exit strategy.
Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of “top advisers” who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the “blindsided” generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless deployments that accomplish nothing.
The New York Times lead story headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump’s move. It read “U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS.” They also editorialized “Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His Advisers.”
The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled Trump’s surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer with an incredible “Fuck the EU” Victoria Nuland’s piece entitled “In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the Middle East,” which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 “…when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at Reuters, The Times, and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump’s having taken a step that is long overdue came from the alternative media.
One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as “presidential” by the Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in “retreat.” And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard praising the move initially.
The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter neocon sound-bites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal of policy “stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver territory, could rebuild.” The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined that “… Trump’s decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran, both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, replied: ‘Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.’”
Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the article, saying:
“It completely takes apart America’s broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing Iran.”
Israel is also turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a “childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist” who is “committing Treason” against the United States.
The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that Donald Trump’s hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops in Syria.
The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good thing for the Syrian people. But let’s assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well, ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.
So we go to fallback argument B, which is “containing Iran.” “Containment” was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat. Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to “counter” Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries’ limited resources. The more money and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the “victory” in Syria to leverage their involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.
And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced. There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two sides.
And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive – $6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end and it has to stop.
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for 2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
December 27, 2018 - Trump Is Leaving Behind a Trap for Russia, Turkey and Iran in Syria
Trump Is Leaving Behind a Trap for Russia, Turkey and Iran in Syria - Global Research
The US executive order of withdrawal from Syria has been signed off on, indicating that President Trump is determined to recall the few thousands US troops in Syria back home. It is well known that regular troops are much more vulnerable during withdrawal operations than in combat or deployment positions. Accordingly, the withdrawal, which seems to be happening despite widespread scepticism in Syria and Iraq, will likely take less than the announced 100 days to complete. US military command keeps the dates secret to avoid casualties. Although the departure of the US is much welcomed by all parties in and around Syria – except for the Kurds – Trump is intentionally leaving behind a very chaotic situation in the Levant, and is setting a deadly trap for Russia in the first place, but also for Iran and Turkey.
Judging from what Presidents Trump and Erdogan said to each other during their last phone conversations, it seems the US establishment has decided to leave Syria in Turkey’s hands. This is far from an innocent move. Indeed, the Pentagon has deliberately pushed the several thousand ISIS fighters in the area under its control to the shore of the Euphrates river, facing the Syrian Army and its allies on the Deir-Ezzour front. This means that, in case of a fast US withdrawal coordinated with Turkey, Ankara’s troops will be able to move into the Kurdish-Arab province of al-Hasaka, starting perhaps with Manbij or Tal Abiad, facing no opposition from ISIS for the simple reason that there aren’t any ISIS militants in the area. The two cities are hundreds of kilometres away from the ISIS-controlled area along the Euphrates in Deir-Ezzour.
Turkey can eradicate ISIS in Manbij, Tel Abiad, Ain Arab, Raqqah and all the way to Qamishli simply because ISIS is not present in the entire area but along the Euphrates opposite the Syrian Army forces where the US pushed it.
In the case of a sudden Turkish attack, the YPG Kurdish forces (Syrian PKK) will have to rush towards the advancing Turkish troops and try to slow them down, waiting for the Syrian government’s help and allowing civilians to leave towards Damascus controlled areas or to flee toward Iraqi Kurdistan. Such a move will disrupt the Turkish-Russian-Syrian relationship. Moscow has already warned Turkey against moving into the northeast Syria. Any Turkish move, or even the advance of its jihadist proxy forces in Syria, amassed on the border of the Kurdish controlled provinces, will trigger a reshuffle in the relationships between Moscow and Ankara and between Moscow and Damascus. Such a realignment can only be avoided if President Erdogan resists the temptation to invade and accedes to Russia’s clear preference that the US departure be followed by discussions about the future of the area.
Turkey was already contemplating – according to well-informed sources in Syria – annexing the north of Syria rather than occupying it. Any occupation of Syrian territory will generate international complications and lack of recognition worldwide. However, Turkey has learned from Northern Cyprus that annexation can continue for decades with only sporadic reactions from the international community. Russia’s annexation of Crimea might be taken as a precedent.
If Erdogan doesn’t coordinate with Russia and Iran, the Idlib front will be opened. Pretexts are not lacking since the jihadists are continuously violating the cease-fire agreed in Astana. A Turkish invasion will lead the Syrian Army to attack Idlib, the city and rural area under jihadist control, while also attacking ISIS on the Euphrates with a view to a quick victory.
Any possible ISIS future massacre and attacks in the Kurdish controlled provinces will give a retroactive moral legitimacy to the past years of US occupation of Syria territory. Pundits and US establishment officials will tell the world how the illegal US presence in Syria over the years had served to fight terrorism (ISIS).
In Damascus there is a growing understanding between Kurds and government representatives, as negotiations continue, about how they will face ISIS together once the US pulls out all forces, a withdrawal expected in less than one month.
There is a need for military coordination to create a secure passage for the troops to squeeze ISIS between two forces on several fronts along the Euphrates river before it expands toward the vast area of al-Hasaka. That will require the support of Russian Air Force, the Syrian Special forces, Iranian ground forces allies and Hezbollah to participate in this very decisive battle to end ISIS, a job the USA did not find time for during the last couple of years of its occupation of the same area.
The YPG will find themselves cooperating with Russia after having fought under USA command for many years. Simultaneously, more Syrian and allied forces will be pushed towards Idlib to prevent the jihadists from taking advantage of the ISIS extermination operation to attack.
For Turkey, any unilateral plan to move into Syria without coordinating with Russia is not to its full advantage. US withdrawal will allow Turkey to reach neither ISIS nor the rich oil and gas fields in DeirEzzour, including al-Omar’s abundant oil and Conoco gas fields. These will be targeted and reached by the Syrian government forces and their allies only after the US withdraws its forces. Last February, Damascus ordered its forces to cross the Euphrates in an attempt to attack ISIS and control the oil and gas fields. These were attacked by the US coalition, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Syrian and Russian Wagner contractors.
Turkish combat skills were not very impressive when Turkish forces clashed with ISIS in many areas, including Jarablus, Al Rai and Dabiq, in 2016. The forces of Ankara were able to control these cities only after a deal with ISIS who managed to absorb the first wave of attack and inflict severe losses on Turkish forces during the first weeks. ISIS pulled out once the battle was doomed and it was attacked from the rear.
It is likely that neither the Turkish army and its allies nor the Kurdish YPG are capable of defeating ISIS alone. The Syrian army, on the other hand, with the help of their allies and the Russians, have driven ISIS out of many places on the Syrian geography including Palmyra, Suweida and surrounding steppe, spread over tens of thousands of kilometres, in urban and open area warfare.
What is certain is that the Kurds have everything to lose from Trump’s decision to withdraw, as he daily gives more indications that he wants to end his occupation of northeast Syria in favor of Turkey. They have profited greatly from the US presence, thinking it would never end. Now they don’t have many choices unless they have developed suicidal tendencies, as their decision in Afrin suggests.
The quick US withdrawal is expected and even designed to create, no doubt, an initial confusion in the triangle Turkey-Syria-Iraq in the first months. ISIS, Turkey, and al-Qaeda may take advantage of this, hoping to turn the situation to their advantage. Nevertheless, this withdrawal will no doubt be a long-term blessing to the Syrian government, whose officials had not dared to hope for such an outcome. The US establishment has been a source of continuous havoc in the Levant and especially to the “Axis of the Resistance”; it has been the protector of al-Qaeda (in Idlib) and ISIS (in the area Trump declares his intention to withdraw from) in Syria and Iraq. Its departure is a sign that the US is coming to grips with the fact that its hegemony is no longer unilateral. Russia is moving forward while the US is backing off in the Middle East.
Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks - Global Research
A Christmas present for the American and Syrian people.
President Donald Trump’s order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday’s resignation by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details, suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media. Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.
The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times featured a lead editorial entitled “Jim Mattis was right” while neocon twitter accounts blazed with indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others, tweeted that the end is nigh.
During the day preceding Mattis’s dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: “In Syria retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders.” It would be difficult to imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. “Retreat,” “rebuffs” and “blindsides” are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that “Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!”
Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the expulsion of that government’s principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria would be a good thing for the United States and also for its “allies” in the region even though there is no way to “win” and no exit strategy.
Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of “top advisers” who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the “blindsided” generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless deployments that accomplish nothing.
The New York Times lead story headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump’s move. It read “U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS.” They also editorialized “Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His Advisers.”
The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled Trump’s surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer with an incredible “Fuck the EU” Victoria Nuland’s piece entitled “In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the Middle East,” which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 “…when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at Reuters, The Times, and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump’s having taken a step that is long overdue came from the alternative media.
One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as “presidential” by the Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in “retreat.” And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard praising the move initially.
The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter neocon sound-bites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal of policy “stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver territory, could rebuild.” The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined that “… Trump’s decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran, both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, replied: ‘Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.’”
Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the article, saying:
“It completely takes apart America’s broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing Iran.”
Israel is also turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a “childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist” who is “committing Treason” against the United States.
The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that Donald Trump’s hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops in Syria.
The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good thing for the Syrian people. But let’s assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well, ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.
So we go to fallback argument B, which is “containing Iran.” “Containment” was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat. Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to “counter” Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries’ limited resources. The more money and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the “victory” in Syria to leverage their involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.
And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced. There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two sides.
And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive – $6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end and it has to stop.
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for 2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
December 27, 2018 - Trump Is Leaving Behind a Trap for Russia, Turkey and Iran in Syria
Trump Is Leaving Behind a Trap for Russia, Turkey and Iran in Syria - Global Research
The US executive order of withdrawal from Syria has been signed off on, indicating that President Trump is determined to recall the few thousands US troops in Syria back home. It is well known that regular troops are much more vulnerable during withdrawal operations than in combat or deployment positions. Accordingly, the withdrawal, which seems to be happening despite widespread scepticism in Syria and Iraq, will likely take less than the announced 100 days to complete. US military command keeps the dates secret to avoid casualties. Although the departure of the US is much welcomed by all parties in and around Syria – except for the Kurds – Trump is intentionally leaving behind a very chaotic situation in the Levant, and is setting a deadly trap for Russia in the first place, but also for Iran and Turkey.
Judging from what Presidents Trump and Erdogan said to each other during their last phone conversations, it seems the US establishment has decided to leave Syria in Turkey’s hands. This is far from an innocent move. Indeed, the Pentagon has deliberately pushed the several thousand ISIS fighters in the area under its control to the shore of the Euphrates river, facing the Syrian Army and its allies on the Deir-Ezzour front. This means that, in case of a fast US withdrawal coordinated with Turkey, Ankara’s troops will be able to move into the Kurdish-Arab province of al-Hasaka, starting perhaps with Manbij or Tal Abiad, facing no opposition from ISIS for the simple reason that there aren’t any ISIS militants in the area. The two cities are hundreds of kilometres away from the ISIS-controlled area along the Euphrates in Deir-Ezzour.
Turkey can eradicate ISIS in Manbij, Tel Abiad, Ain Arab, Raqqah and all the way to Qamishli simply because ISIS is not present in the entire area but along the Euphrates opposite the Syrian Army forces where the US pushed it.
In the case of a sudden Turkish attack, the YPG Kurdish forces (Syrian PKK) will have to rush towards the advancing Turkish troops and try to slow them down, waiting for the Syrian government’s help and allowing civilians to leave towards Damascus controlled areas or to flee toward Iraqi Kurdistan. Such a move will disrupt the Turkish-Russian-Syrian relationship. Moscow has already warned Turkey against moving into the northeast Syria. Any Turkish move, or even the advance of its jihadist proxy forces in Syria, amassed on the border of the Kurdish controlled provinces, will trigger a reshuffle in the relationships between Moscow and Ankara and between Moscow and Damascus. Such a realignment can only be avoided if President Erdogan resists the temptation to invade and accedes to Russia’s clear preference that the US departure be followed by discussions about the future of the area.
Turkey was already contemplating – according to well-informed sources in Syria – annexing the north of Syria rather than occupying it. Any occupation of Syrian territory will generate international complications and lack of recognition worldwide. However, Turkey has learned from Northern Cyprus that annexation can continue for decades with only sporadic reactions from the international community. Russia’s annexation of Crimea might be taken as a precedent.
If Erdogan doesn’t coordinate with Russia and Iran, the Idlib front will be opened. Pretexts are not lacking since the jihadists are continuously violating the cease-fire agreed in Astana. A Turkish invasion will lead the Syrian Army to attack Idlib, the city and rural area under jihadist control, while also attacking ISIS on the Euphrates with a view to a quick victory.
Any possible ISIS future massacre and attacks in the Kurdish controlled provinces will give a retroactive moral legitimacy to the past years of US occupation of Syria territory. Pundits and US establishment officials will tell the world how the illegal US presence in Syria over the years had served to fight terrorism (ISIS).
In Damascus there is a growing understanding between Kurds and government representatives, as negotiations continue, about how they will face ISIS together once the US pulls out all forces, a withdrawal expected in less than one month.
There is a need for military coordination to create a secure passage for the troops to squeeze ISIS between two forces on several fronts along the Euphrates river before it expands toward the vast area of al-Hasaka. That will require the support of Russian Air Force, the Syrian Special forces, Iranian ground forces allies and Hezbollah to participate in this very decisive battle to end ISIS, a job the USA did not find time for during the last couple of years of its occupation of the same area.
The YPG will find themselves cooperating with Russia after having fought under USA command for many years. Simultaneously, more Syrian and allied forces will be pushed towards Idlib to prevent the jihadists from taking advantage of the ISIS extermination operation to attack.
For Turkey, any unilateral plan to move into Syria without coordinating with Russia is not to its full advantage. US withdrawal will allow Turkey to reach neither ISIS nor the rich oil and gas fields in DeirEzzour, including al-Omar’s abundant oil and Conoco gas fields. These will be targeted and reached by the Syrian government forces and their allies only after the US withdraws its forces. Last February, Damascus ordered its forces to cross the Euphrates in an attempt to attack ISIS and control the oil and gas fields. These were attacked by the US coalition, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Syrian and Russian Wagner contractors.
Turkish combat skills were not very impressive when Turkish forces clashed with ISIS in many areas, including Jarablus, Al Rai and Dabiq, in 2016. The forces of Ankara were able to control these cities only after a deal with ISIS who managed to absorb the first wave of attack and inflict severe losses on Turkish forces during the first weeks. ISIS pulled out once the battle was doomed and it was attacked from the rear.
It is likely that neither the Turkish army and its allies nor the Kurdish YPG are capable of defeating ISIS alone. The Syrian army, on the other hand, with the help of their allies and the Russians, have driven ISIS out of many places on the Syrian geography including Palmyra, Suweida and surrounding steppe, spread over tens of thousands of kilometres, in urban and open area warfare.
What is certain is that the Kurds have everything to lose from Trump’s decision to withdraw, as he daily gives more indications that he wants to end his occupation of northeast Syria in favor of Turkey. They have profited greatly from the US presence, thinking it would never end. Now they don’t have many choices unless they have developed suicidal tendencies, as their decision in Afrin suggests.
The quick US withdrawal is expected and even designed to create, no doubt, an initial confusion in the triangle Turkey-Syria-Iraq in the first months. ISIS, Turkey, and al-Qaeda may take advantage of this, hoping to turn the situation to their advantage. Nevertheless, this withdrawal will no doubt be a long-term blessing to the Syrian government, whose officials had not dared to hope for such an outcome. The US establishment has been a source of continuous havoc in the Levant and especially to the “Axis of the Resistance”; it has been the protector of al-Qaeda (in Idlib) and ISIS (in the area Trump declares his intention to withdraw from) in Syria and Iraq. Its departure is a sign that the US is coming to grips with the fact that its hegemony is no longer unilateral. Russia is moving forward while the US is backing off in the Middle East.
Senate Security Expert Suspended From Facebook - RussiaGate Crumbling
Published on Dec 27, 2018 / 30:24
Of all the holiday gatherings Jerome Powell gets invited to, a sit-down in the Oval Office might be one of the last he’d want to attend.
Just days after President Donald Trump blamed the Federal Reserve chairman for the stock market’s December swoon and discussed with aides his desire to fire him, White House staff are reportedly working to set up a meeting between the two.
While some Fed watchers said such a confab could ease tensions, most warned it might be a minefield for Powell, either creating the impression the Fed is giving in to presidential pressure, or simply generating confusion over what gets discussed.
“This is a very dangerous meeting,” said Mark Spindel, the head of Potomac River Capital, a Washington investment fund.
Coming amid a massive market sell-off and soon after a bevy of attacks on Powell from Trump, a meeting might only put the Fed in an even tougher spot, Spindel said. “Could I imagine a kiss and make up in the Rose Garden? Yes,” he said. But the president could also “offer his own read-out of what happens,” as he has after other meetings.
Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chairman under Ben Bernanke, agreed a meeting would carry plenty of peril for Powell.
“The downside is not the meeting itself, but what happens afterwards,” said Kohn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “The risk is that the president interprets what he hears and then repeats something publicly that is not entirely consistent with what the chair wanted to convey,” he said.
With nine rate hikes in three years, the Fed is trying to balance the risks of moving too fast and squelching the U.S. expansion and moving too slowly, allowing the economy or financial markets to overheat. Trump has railed against rate hikes since July because inflation is tame. His ire hit a new level after the Fed hiked for a fourth time this year on Dec. 19, a move that further depressed an already sliding stock market.
Two days later, Bloomberg News reported that Trump had spoken with aides about firing Powell, triggering even worse pain for stocks. The S&P 500 Index fell on Dec. 24 to its lowest since April 2017. It has since rebounded slightly but remains down almost 10 percent this year and about 17 percent since Sept. 20.
That’s angered the president, who has encouraged Americans to judge his performance by the size of their retirement accounts. On Christmas Eve he continued to blame the Fed, tweeting, “the only problem our economy has is the Fed.”
While some Fed watchers said such a confab could ease tensions, most warned it might be a minefield for Powell, either creating the impression the Fed is giving in to presidential pressure, or simply generating confusion over what gets discussed.
The constant pressure has forced Powell to regularly reassure markets that Fed officials operate independent of politics. That means they will neither stop raising rates at Trump’s behest nor continue hiking in order to demonstrate their independence.
Trump is “changing the debate about what monetary policy should be,” said George Washington University professor Sarah Binder. “It just raises these doubts about how insulated the Fed can be from these kinds of pressures.”
Some senior administration officials appear to understand the risks of undermining the Fed and have sought to contain the controversy. Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said Dec. 23 that Trump “now realizes he does not have the ability” to fire a Fed chairman. On Dec. 26, Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters that Powell was “100 percent” safe in his post.
A report that White House staff hoped to set up a Trump-Powell meeting appeared in The Wall Street Journal on Dec. 23.
Since Bill Clinton, presidents have refrained from criticizing the Fed in public and generally resisted pressuring the central bank behind the scenes. Still, meetings between a Fed chair and president were not unheard of. Alan Greenspan, Bernanke and Janet Yellen all attended such gatherings, typically to brief the president on the U.S. economic outlook, deal with a crisis or discuss their reappointment or departure.
Even in the current, rancorous circumstances, a meeting now has some potential upside for Powell.
“The opportunity for Jay is that he gets a chance to confront his chief critic and enhance the president’s understanding of why the Federal Reserve is doing what it’s doing,” Kohn said.
Hassett said “the two of them are great guys” who would get along if they were to meet and talk things through. “The president loves to listen to reason, to arguments, to analysis, and Jay does too. So I think they would have a very productive dinner were they to meet,” he told Fox Business Network on Thursday.
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, counseled Powell not to challenge the president, even if Trump follows the meeting with a mischaracterization of what was discussed.
“The Fed can just be factual,” he said. “It’s not their job to correct other people, it’s their job to repeat what their message is.”
Of all the holiday gatherings Jerome Powell gets invited to, a sit-down in the Oval Office might be one of the last he’d want to attend.
Just days after President Donald Trump blamed the Federal Reserve chairman for the stock market’s December swoon and discussed with aides his desire to fire him, White House staff are reportedly working to set up a meeting between the two.
While some Fed watchers said such a confab could ease tensions, most warned it might be a minefield for Powell, either creating the impression the Fed is giving in to presidential pressure, or simply generating confusion over what gets discussed.
“This is a very dangerous meeting,” said Mark Spindel, the head of Potomac River Capital, a Washington investment fund.
Coming amid a massive market sell-off and soon after a bevy of attacks on Powell from Trump, a meeting might only put the Fed in an even tougher spot, Spindel said. “Could I imagine a kiss and make up in the Rose Garden? Yes,” he said. But the president could also “offer his own read-out of what happens,” as he has after other meetings.
Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chairman under Ben Bernanke, agreed a meeting would carry plenty of peril for Powell.
“The downside is not the meeting itself, but what happens afterwards,” said Kohn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “The risk is that the president interprets what he hears and then repeats something publicly that is not entirely consistent with what the chair wanted to convey,” he said.
With nine rate hikes in three years, the Fed is trying to balance the risks of moving too fast and squelching the U.S. expansion and moving too slowly, allowing the economy or financial markets to overheat. Trump has railed against rate hikes since July because inflation is tame. His ire hit a new level after the Fed hiked for a fourth time this year on Dec. 19, a move that further depressed an already sliding stock market.
Two days later, Bloomberg News reported that Trump had spoken with aides about firing Powell, triggering even worse pain for stocks. The S&P 500 Index fell on Dec. 24 to its lowest since April 2017. It has since rebounded slightly but remains down almost 10 percent this year and about 17 percent since Sept. 20.
That’s angered the president, who has encouraged Americans to judge his performance by the size of their retirement accounts. On Christmas Eve he continued to blame the Fed, tweeting, “the only problem our economy has is the Fed.”
While some Fed watchers said such a confab could ease tensions, most warned it might be a minefield for Powell, either creating the impression the Fed is giving in to presidential pressure, or simply generating confusion over what gets discussed.
The constant pressure has forced Powell to regularly reassure markets that Fed officials operate independent of politics. That means they will neither stop raising rates at Trump’s behest nor continue hiking in order to demonstrate their independence.
Trump is “changing the debate about what monetary policy should be,” said George Washington University professor Sarah Binder. “It just raises these doubts about how insulated the Fed can be from these kinds of pressures.”
Some senior administration officials appear to understand the risks of undermining the Fed and have sought to contain the controversy. Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said Dec. 23 that Trump “now realizes he does not have the ability” to fire a Fed chairman. On Dec. 26, Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters that Powell was “100 percent” safe in his post.
A report that White House staff hoped to set up a Trump-Powell meeting appeared in The Wall Street Journal on Dec. 23.
Since Bill Clinton, presidents have refrained from criticizing the Fed in public and generally resisted pressuring the central bank behind the scenes. Still, meetings between a Fed chair and president were not unheard of. Alan Greenspan, Bernanke and Janet Yellen all attended such gatherings, typically to brief the president on the U.S. economic outlook, deal with a crisis or discuss their reappointment or departure.
Even in the current, rancorous circumstances, a meeting now has some potential upside for Powell.
“The opportunity for Jay is that he gets a chance to confront his chief critic and enhance the president’s understanding of why the Federal Reserve is doing what it’s doing,” Kohn said.
Hassett said “the two of them are great guys” who would get along if they were to meet and talk things through. “The president loves to listen to reason, to arguments, to analysis, and Jay does too. So I think they would have a very productive dinner were they to meet,” he told Fox Business Network on Thursday.
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, counseled Powell not to challenge the president, even if Trump follows the meeting with a mischaracterization of what was discussed.
“The Fed can just be factual,” he said. “It’s not their job to correct other people, it’s their job to repeat what their message is.”
angelburst29
The Living Force
c.a. Today at 8:38 AM
Tom Fitton ✔ @TomFitton
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1078413914537447424
My @JudicialWatch on @WMALDC: The Mueller investigation isn’t about getting justice – it’s about getting President @realDonaldTrump... so I believe the President should either direct the Justice Department to shut it down or take independent legal action to shut it down.
5:14 PM - Dec 27, 2018
I agree, if there is any truth to this ...
... and an investigation should be opened into Mueller's activities, highlighting his sources during the Russiagate witch hunt?
No need to deny false accusations of#RussiansDidIt It looks like all cases of #RussianInterference will soon be revealed as staged / orchestrated by Western experts in #RussianDisinformation Meet the fathers of the 'Russian troll farm in Alabama': @JonathonMorgan & @ReidHoffmanpic.twitter.com/bVsYkmrVGc
[U]New Knowledge[/U] and [U]Data for Democracy[/U]
Tom Fitton ✔ @TomFitton
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1078413914537447424
My @JudicialWatch on @WMALDC: The Mueller investigation isn’t about getting justice – it’s about getting President @realDonaldTrump... so I believe the President should either direct the Justice Department to shut it down or take independent legal action to shut it down.
5:14 PM - Dec 27, 2018
I agree, if there is any truth to this ...
... and an investigation should be opened into Mueller's activities, highlighting his sources during the Russiagate witch hunt?
No need to deny false accusations of
[U]New Knowledge[/U] and [U]Data for Democracy[/U]
angelburst29
The Living Force
This headline appearing on ABC Morning news:
Monday December 31, 2018 - Russia detains US Citizen on suspicion of Spying
Russia detains US citizen on suspicion of spying
Russian authorities have detained an American citizen over accusations of spying, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.
In a short statement, the agency notes Russia's Federal Security Service detained a US citizen named Paul Whelan in Moscow on Friday.
"On December 28, in Moscow, officers of the FSB of Russia detained a US citizen Paul Whelan during a spy’ action," Interfax's message reads. "The Russian Federal Security Service investigation department opened a criminal case against a US citizen under article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code (espionage)."
It provided no further details.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, article 276, titled Espionage, reads, "Transfer, and also collection, theft, or keeping for the purpose of transfer to a foreign state, a foreign organisation, or their representatives of information constituting a state secret, and also transfer or collection of other information under the order of a foreign intelligence service, to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, if these deeds have been committed by a foreign national or a stateless person, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years."
The U.S. and Russia have been engaged in long-standing animosity with each other over several different issues, including the war in Syria, the poisoning of Russian critics in the U.K., conflict in Crimea and the years-long Mueller investigation over Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Indictments have been brought against over a dozen Russian nationals by Mueller.
This is a developing story, check back for updates.
31 Dec, 2018 - US citizen detained in Moscow over suspected spying – FSB
‘Caught in the act of spying’: US citizen detained in Moscow ahead of New Year’s Eve celebrations
FILE PHOTO FSB agents during a raid. © FSB / Global Look Press
An American citizen was apprehended during a “spying action” in Moscow, the Federal Security Service (FSB) said. He is currently being detained on suspicion of espionage.
FSB agents detained a US national named Paul Whelan on Friday during “a spying action,” the agency’s press office told TASS.
Criminal proceedings were launched against the man under Article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code, which covers the crime of espionage.
No details of the suspect’s identity or facts surrounding the operation were immediately disclosed.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the US Embassy in Moscow was notified of Whelan’s detention.
News of the American citizen’s arrest comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and Russia. Washington has accused Moscow of meddling in its domestic affairs and of various spy activities.
In October, the US Ministry of Justice accused seven Russians of being GRU military intelligence officers, and charged them with hacking and committing wire fraud.
Four men belonging to that group were expelled from the Netherlands in April for allegedly attempting to hack the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Moscow denied all allegations, dismissing them as “spy mania.”
Earlier this month, a Moscow court sentenced former police officer Aleksey Zhitnyuk to 13 years in prison for providing classified data to a foreign national. The trial took place behind closed doors, and the details of the case remain unknown. However, according to media reports, he was suspected of being in contact with the CIA.
December 31, 2018 - Russia detains American in Moscow over suspected spying
Russia detains American in Moscow over suspected spying | Reuters
FILE PHOTO: A flag flies behind an enclosure on the territory of the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Russia March 28, 2018. REUTERS/Tatyana Makeyeva/File Photo
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia’s domestic security service (FSB) said on Monday it had detained an American citizen suspected of spying in Moscow.
The FSB, which said the American had been detained on December 28, said in a statement that a criminal case had been opened against him. It did not provide any detail about the nature of the alleged espionage.
The U.S. Embassy in Moscow could not immediately be reached for comment.
Russia’s relations with the United States have soured since Moscow annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014.
Since then the United States and other Western countries have imposed a wide-range of sanctions against Russian officials, companies and banks.
Monday December 31, 2018 - Russia detains US Citizen on suspicion of Spying
Russia detains US citizen on suspicion of spying
Russian authorities have detained an American citizen over accusations of spying, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.
In a short statement, the agency notes Russia's Federal Security Service detained a US citizen named Paul Whelan in Moscow on Friday.
"On December 28, in Moscow, officers of the FSB of Russia detained a US citizen Paul Whelan during a spy’ action," Interfax's message reads. "The Russian Federal Security Service investigation department opened a criminal case against a US citizen under article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code (espionage)."
It provided no further details.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, article 276, titled Espionage, reads, "Transfer, and also collection, theft, or keeping for the purpose of transfer to a foreign state, a foreign organisation, or their representatives of information constituting a state secret, and also transfer or collection of other information under the order of a foreign intelligence service, to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, if these deeds have been committed by a foreign national or a stateless person, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years."
The U.S. and Russia have been engaged in long-standing animosity with each other over several different issues, including the war in Syria, the poisoning of Russian critics in the U.K., conflict in Crimea and the years-long Mueller investigation over Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Indictments have been brought against over a dozen Russian nationals by Mueller.
This is a developing story, check back for updates.
31 Dec, 2018 - US citizen detained in Moscow over suspected spying – FSB
‘Caught in the act of spying’: US citizen detained in Moscow ahead of New Year’s Eve celebrations
FILE PHOTO FSB agents during a raid. © FSB / Global Look Press
An American citizen was apprehended during a “spying action” in Moscow, the Federal Security Service (FSB) said. He is currently being detained on suspicion of espionage.
FSB agents detained a US national named Paul Whelan on Friday during “a spying action,” the agency’s press office told TASS.
Criminal proceedings were launched against the man under Article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code, which covers the crime of espionage.
No details of the suspect’s identity or facts surrounding the operation were immediately disclosed.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the US Embassy in Moscow was notified of Whelan’s detention.
News of the American citizen’s arrest comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and Russia. Washington has accused Moscow of meddling in its domestic affairs and of various spy activities.
In October, the US Ministry of Justice accused seven Russians of being GRU military intelligence officers, and charged them with hacking and committing wire fraud.
Four men belonging to that group were expelled from the Netherlands in April for allegedly attempting to hack the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Moscow denied all allegations, dismissing them as “spy mania.”
Earlier this month, a Moscow court sentenced former police officer Aleksey Zhitnyuk to 13 years in prison for providing classified data to a foreign national. The trial took place behind closed doors, and the details of the case remain unknown. However, according to media reports, he was suspected of being in contact with the CIA.
December 31, 2018 - Russia detains American in Moscow over suspected spying
Russia detains American in Moscow over suspected spying | Reuters
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia’s domestic security service (FSB) said on Monday it had detained an American citizen suspected of spying in Moscow.
The FSB, which said the American had been detained on December 28, said in a statement that a criminal case had been opened against him. It did not provide any detail about the nature of the alleged espionage.
The U.S. Embassy in Moscow could not immediately be reached for comment.
Russia’s relations with the United States have soured since Moscow annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014.
Since then the United States and other Western countries have imposed a wide-range of sanctions against Russian officials, companies and banks.
