The Truth About The War In Aleppo, Syria

ANTIWAR.com has reprinted an article that gives a very good overview of the horrible mess that America's war mongers have visited upon the Syrian people over the past several years.

I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at the identity of the author, David Stockman, a name that is very familiar to those of us who were around during the Reagan Era.

Stockman was widely perceived to be the most sane of the Reagan Team when it came to understanding that you cannot balance the budget when you are cutting tax revenue at the same time you are increasing military spending dramatically. It appears David has come around quite a bit since the time he willingly served the most unhinged Cold Warrior of his time: Ronald Reagan.

Here are a couple of lengthy excerpts:

This is starting to sound pretty ominous. The Washington War Party is coming unhinged and appears to be leaving no stone unturned when it comes to provoking Putin’s Russia and numerous others.

The recent collapse of cooperation in Syria – based on the false claim that Assad and his Russian allies are waging genocide in Aleppo – is only the latest example.

So now comes the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, General Mark Milley, doing his best imitation of Curtis LeMay in a recent speech dripping with bellicosity. While America has no industrial state enemy left on the planet that can even remotely challenge its economic might, technological superiority and overwhelming military power, General Milley unloaded a fusillade of bluster at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington DC:

“The strategic resolve of our nation, the United States, is being challenged and our alliances tested in ways that we haven’t faced in many, many decades,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the audience.

“I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”

That is rank nonsense. We are not being “tested” by anyone. To the contrary, Imperial Washington is provoking tensions and confrontations everywhere – from the South China Sea to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, the Black Sea, the Baltics and Ukraine – that have no bearing whatsoever on the safety and security of the citizens of Spokane WA, Topeka KS and Springfield MA.

Some background:

What is happening in Aleppo is a raging sectarian civil war and a proxy battleground for the regional political maneuvers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are none of America’s business and haven’t been since the so-called Arab spring uprising spread to Syria in 2011.

Indeed, Syria is a lawless, bombed-out, economically decimated failed state today owing to Washington’s heavy-handed intervention at the behest of the War Party’s bloody twin sisters. That is, the neocons and the R2P liberal interventionist claque around Hillary Clinton, including UN Ambassador Samantha Powers and National Security Council head Susan Rice.

We name names in this context for a reason. A nation of 22 million back in 2011, which had been reasonably stable in modern times under the authoritarian but secular rule of the Assad family, does not suddenly give rise to a human tsunami of 5 million refugees spilling all over the Mediterranean and Europe and to the reduction of virtually every one of its ancient cities and towns to rubble and rivers of blood on its own volition.

To the contrary, all of this mayhem was instigated by the War Party’s armchair warriors and the “indispensable” nation hegemonists in Washington. Literally billions in aid, weapons, munitions, training and logistics have flowed into Syria from all directions on the outside. And all of it was either financed by American taxpayers or by regional powers which have been armed and greenlighted by Washington.

And the conclusion:

The whole thing is madness. Yet at this very moment Washington is risking a military clash with Russia owing to the breakdown of the truce in Aleppo, and a renewed campaign to establish a no fly zone in the immediate area.

Really? The US Air Force is going to shootdown Russian bombers to protect civilians in a small part of what is left of Aleppo who are being used as human shields by affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda?

Madness indeed.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

I hope that all informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I’ve been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief.

Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, including the recent revelations that he is precisely the kind of person I'd like to see driven from participation in politics forever. But that dour assessment of his overall worth as a human being does nothing to change my perception that we would all be a lot better off with an embarrassing jerk in the White House than we would be with Hillary Clinton in charge of America's military might.

It is important to understand that the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

But when it comes to the President’s ability to put American ‘boots on the ground’ vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a ‘tough bitch’, ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

All of her experience re: foreign policy that she’s been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The “No Fly Zone” she’s been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people’s lives, is ingrained within her political personality, of which she is so proud.

Her greatest political fear—that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being “weak on America’s enemies”—is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is ‘tested’, as she expects.

How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton—and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton.

Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America’s continued participation in NATO.

These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation—through miscalculation—under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

With the MIC comes no money to do anything domestically. It's so convienient for HRC to want a no-fly zone which will tie her hands when it comes to all the shit she is promising people. How convienient. Pure evil.

up
0 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

...another horrible thing about Donald Trump, I shake my head and agree that he is one of the worst candidates for President we've ever seen, unlikeable on so many levels. But in spite of all of his horrible ideas and his failures of character, he is still clearly less of a threat to me than Hillary Clinton.

We can survive four year's of Trump's brand of corporatist greed and his loony sense of self-importance, but I have no such confidence that we will survive four years of Hillary's blood and guts instincts while driving America's fearsome military machine.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Roy Blakeley's picture

with Trump, there is some chance that if we survive four years of Trump, who is all the bad things that people have said, we might have a chance (admittedly small) of having a decent Democratic nominee in spite of the malevolent incompetents that currently run the Democratic party. If HRC is elected, we will have four years of a very scary administration fully supported by the corporate media and NPR who are in full cold war mode already, followed by either four more years of HRC or an equally bad Republican nominee. A Clinton win would lock in eight years of militaristic neocon rule at a time when the planet and its people are in desperate need of a radical change for the better.

up
0 users have voted.

But some close friends are having nightmares about a President Trump because of his own unique brand of insanity and bullying. Hard to reassure them why Trump is actually probably not as bad as Clinton.

up
0 users have voted.

Love is my religion.

I don't trust to Trump to maintain that position givin he chose uberhawk Mike Pence for his running mate and givin the fact that he got his wall idea from Netenyahu, the King of the Neocons. He's already backed off his position that the Iraq war was stupid in favor of the idea that we left too soon. It's not like he doesn't change his mind all the time. The Peace movement lost the election, when Bernie conceded to Hillary.

We need to be prepared to protest.

up
0 users have voted.

We need to be prepared to protest.

That's the problem with gambling on Hillary. Once she starts with the demonizing rhetoric and announces her commitments of military assets to some theater, it will already be too late for us to protest. Protest we will, but it will be too little, too late, just as it was prior to Persian Gulf Wars I & II.

The compliant press will rally around her and "The Troops" and we will be drowned out once again. As Commander-in-Chief, she's holding all the cards.

Wars don't start suddenly overnight. They follow weeks and sometimes months and years of demonizing rhetoric. Don't know if you've noticed, but that's already happening right now. They are setting us up for it.

Unfortunately, being prepared to protest some time next year when she starts ordering troop movements and carrier task forces around will unfortunately be too late.

The time to protest is NOW.

And unfortunately, our only hope to stop her at this point is making her lose to that despicable asshole Trump. Everything else is a gamble, and I don't think we can afford the price of guessing wrong, of investing in the wistful hope that she will not be who she has consistently demonstrated she is.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Should protests break out, expect the full weight of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act to be dropped upon us. Considering how the militarized police are perfectly willing to shoot unarmed civilians, we can't trust that the American Military will balk at doing so. As we are seeing in South Dakota, the law and the courts are on the side of corporatism. They will not uphold the Bill of Rights.

The Republic is rapidly becoming an open Empire, just like happened to the Romans 2000 years ago.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

lotlizard's picture

It already is for a lot of Black people, just ask BLM.

Considering how the militarized police are perfectly willing to shoot unarmed civilians, we can't trust that the American Military will balk at doing so.

up
0 users have voted.

If protests start to get traction, Hillary Clinton's response will make Richard Nixon look like Ghandi.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

https://infogalactic.com/info/Indira_Gandhi

2.1  Verdict on electoral malpractice
2.2  State of emergency
2.3  Rule by decree
2.4  Rise of Sanjay Chelsea
. . .

up
0 users have voted.

...that Trump's positions on foreign policy are very 'fluid' and that he'll embrace some positions that he simply expects will play well with his supporters. But there's nothing stopping him from trying to outdo Clinton with warmongering rhetoric vs. Russia---which would seem to be the safe path for him to follow as a Republican---and that is not where he has chosen to go. That should tell you something.

What I think we can trust is that he will not try to ratchet up the rhetoric against Russia and Putin, which is more important than anything right now, if you want to see our country stay out of a devastating war. Based on everything she has said and done re: foreign policy over the past couple of decades, Hillary absolutely is going to roll the dice on daring the Russians to respond to our her bold moves.

We've got to stop that from happening if we can.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

I see it is, obviously, trump's an unknown quantity. I'm guessing, but I don't think trump has any direct blood on his hands. I don't think he's ever had someone killed. To suddenly have the power to kill thousands of people and not be held accountable would have to be crushing if you have even a tiny bit of morals. This is what I believe is unknown about trump. His orders will cost lives and treasure. Will he have the stomach for it or will he work towards peaceful solutions. Is he a builder or a destroyer.
Clinton is a know quantity. She's a psychopath in every sense of the word. She has no regard for the lives of those beneath her status. Whether American or those from other countries, their lives are unimportant as long as she attains her personal goals. Her driving force, I believe, is what actions enriches/empowers her the most. It's what she has done since she married. Go after and grab the money. She took it to a new level when she became SOS.
I'm in Ohio. My vote is likely going to Jill but when I read this stuff I waver. I guess I'll wait closer to election day to see how I vote...

up
0 users have voted.
kharma's picture

I haven't chosen to embrace the orange anus but I have categorically rejected Clinton. As it stands, I will vote Stein.

up
0 users have voted.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams

...the orange anus either, but I will almost certainly vote for him, anyway, just to avoid a disaster none of us can afford.

I wish the situation were such that a vote for Jill in certain states would not directly help Hillary to destroy our lives, but unfortunately, that's what I'm seeing.

Building up the Green Party into a viable option is highly desirable, but I just can't see the value in helping that cause in this election cycle when the war drums are beating and helping the GP in a fairly small way could end enabling the unintended consequence of killing my children and their future.

I feel so sorry for us...

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Citizen Of Earth's picture

I'm done voting for a lesser evil. Sadly there are 200 million lemmings that will follow the stampede off the cliff by rationalizing a vote for either Trump or Clinton.

BTW, excellent article about Syria, so thanks of that link.

up
0 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Military budget of US is embarrassing and HRC is the one who is escalating war in Syria NOT Trump.

up
0 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Song of the lark's picture

anything. And furthermore Trump is clearly the more reckless and easily co-opted by nefarious exogenous forces as well as the deep state locally. Clinton for the lack of someone worse was always the choice of the deep state. Stockman is playing his useful idiot card. And the faulty logic of the diarist is even more problematic. The MENA district is in COLLAPSE. The confused US policy does further the chaos of the many internecine religious battles, and proxy intrusions. There will be no containing it soon. At least Clinton knows who the real enemies are. Trump hadn't a clue.

up
0 users have voted.

Certainly Hillary Clinton knows who HER enemies are. She made them. TPTB determined that a string of secular dictators from Iraq to Libya needed to be brought down. They made this decision in the 90s. Bush started on Iraq. Obama, with Clinton as possibly the most hawkish cabinet member, Added Libya and Syria. Yes these dictators were brutal. No they did not have majority support. But they were rarely challenged and their countries were stable. The only thing the various religious and ethnic groups agreed on was the need to remove the dictator. There was never any reason to believe removing the dictator would result in anything but chaotic civil war.

The "popular" uprisings did not just happen. At a minimum the US promised support when uprisings were underway. There is evidence that the US worked actively to increase the level of violence in the resistance. Clearly, when the dictators reacted brutally to suppress resistance the US used the behavior as a pretext to escalate our arming of the "freedom fighters." US policy has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people with Hillary leading the charge--from behind.

Neither has any power at the moment to escalate.

When was the last time 50 State Department policy people publicly broke with the president to support a more militaristic policy of the former Secretary of State and likely future president? You don't think Hillary's pledge of unquestioning support emboldened Netanyahu as he authorized a new settlement closer to Jordan than Israel?

The logic of the diarist is spot on. You need to get a clue.

up
0 users have voted.

...Trump is clearly the more reckless and easily co-opted by nefarious exogenous forces as well as the deep state locally.

Based on what? Please give any kind of fact/link/rationale to support this assertion, for it is actually nothing more than an assertion, a campaign accusation that is repeated endlessly until more and more uninformed voters start to believe there must be something to it.

Hillary is clearly---to those of us who are informed about her actual political history---the more reckless and easily co-opted by nefarious endogenous forces (the Neo-conservative brain trust) who are intent on putting American right in the middle of every sort of regional dispute around the world, nobly wasting American lives and treasure on their chest-thumping fantasies.

Although I am already quite aware that none of your claim actually has any substance, please entertain me with whatever blather you'd like to spew...

Oh yeah...please send this diarist's regards to that empty-souled elitist, Markos Moulitsas. I hope and pray that everything he's worked for over this past year goes completely to hell...

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Song of the lark's picture

Trump on the other hand is part of the soon to be losing Wall Street criminal complex. These two parts of the deep state often work together but are currently in a sub rose war. Far be it from me to defend either. However the "Clinton side" has all the guns and correct analysis of our interests. We are at the beginning of the final Resource War. China knows this.
The Wall Street, big finance "Trump side" is shortly to precipitate a global crash due to their own greed, the beginnings of the unravel of globalization, and their love of debt. Trump is a lover of debt. their perfect shill. By the way Stockman has very good analysis of this in his major book on deformation. I don't take sides on most of this, but at least with Hillary we might save our unicorn fiat currency which is backed by 5000 nuclear bombs. And I hold out hope that at least some green policies and some social justice will come our way with a democratic win. IT won't stop what is coming and in that TRUMP is infinitely worse.

up
0 users have voted.

...arcane references...

Let me begin by noting how mystified I am by your claim that Hillary Clinton is not on the Big Finance/Wall Street side of the 'Deep State' and Donald Trump is. How can you justify such a baseless assertion?

Or is this perhaps just another of those 'misdirection' assertions which seek to hide Hillary's true culpability by directly accusing her opponent of that which she is actually guilty of, herself?

(Like when she artfully smeared Bernie Sanders by accusing him of artfully smearing her?)

You believe Hillary has the correct analysis of our interests? Please expand on this, if you would. What are our interests, from Hillary's POV?

Your fantasy about the Final Resource War is rich. Resources have been scarce since the beginning of time, but in the modern age, war has never been a profitable way to secure them. The peaceful way to obtain desired resources---trade---has proven over time to provide highly desirable results at a very acceptable cost.

Aside from the United States, which lunatic nation seems to believe that it will have to use military might to secure the resources it desires?

And then you somehow conclude that Hillary might be able to save our fiat currency and that Donald would not. You offer nothing whatsoever to support these mind-blowing claims, but continue to rely on unconvincing assertions.

If you are serious about the case you are making, and I'm not convinced that you are, please try to leaven your claims with some convincing citations of fact.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Song of the lark's picture

And she collected money for herself and the Clinton foundation in an attempt at enrichment and an effort to "do some good in the world" A great rationalization for many liberals who are born into an essentially insane world.
In the past many resources comparatively were quite plentiful. We've gotten to most of the low hanging fruit. And no resources acquisition has always been about Violence.
I give you Derrick Jensen's first four premises.
Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.
Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.
Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.
Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

up
0 users have voted.

...I guess thanks for letting me know where you're coming from. Beats the hell out of all the cryptic references.

I don't see much in Jensen's speculations that strikes me as cogent analysis, given my understanding of economics and political history. The only apocalyptic threat I see right now exists in the form of Hillary Clinton and her sense of American exceptionalism.

If we can somehow prevent/survive her infatuation with military drama, I'm fairly optimistic about the future of the human race, assuming that all of the environmental activists out there who want to do something to save their future realize that everything they hope for depends on convincing the educational establishment that reducing the population is everything.

And by that I mean creating a shared consciousness throughout the whole of society that we need to stop having children for a while. No violent solutions are needed...just wisdom.

Having said all that, I just don't get where you think rolling the dice on Hillary's military adventurism will serve any good end whatsoever that you seem to desire.

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Song of the lark's picture

say where the electoral votes go. Peace...oh and please don't vote for Trump

up
0 users have voted.

are these "nefarious exogenous forces" to which you refer, that you think are in cahoots with Trump? I don't suppose you mean the Saudis or the Gulf States, do you? Though they have indeed been nefarious. And certainly you can't mean the current Ukrainian government, which may or may not be nefarious, but is decidedly corrupt. Nor could you be referring to al Quada's forces, who are trying to "get rid of Assad" for us. These "exogenous forces" are after all Clinton's allies and/or proxies, rather than Trump's.

If you mean Russia and Iran, you should just say Russia and Iran.

up
0 users have voted.

native

dervish's picture

I would vote Stein too. As it is, I can't escape the thought that I have to everything in my power to stop her, including voting for Trump.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Big Al's picture

It is a proxy war, the U.S. and others using jihadists and mercenaries as a proxy army to try to topple Assad. This is a U.S. driven war, the sectarian conflict purposely engineered under Bush (See The Redirection by Sy Hersh). They don't want to lose Aleppo to the Syrian military because that would probably mean game over for the U.S. plans.

up
0 users have voted.
Hillbilly Dem's picture

Good synopsis of yet another self-imposed mess that we've gotten ourselves into. Plus, it's somewhat encouraging to know that some people like David Stockman and John Dean can see the light.

up
0 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Roy Blakeley's picture

Somewhat off the main theme of the post, but relevant to Stockman, with respect to militarism and US aggression in the middle east, the old left-right divisions have broken down completely. The libertarian right and the anti-corporate left both oppose US actions. This is increasingly happening with respect to foreign policy and military spending. While I have no affinity with the libertarian right, I will say that they, and many of us, share is a skepticism of the Washington consensus, the ability (or curse) to look at the line the corporate media is feeding us and to see that it makes no sense.

up
0 users have voted.
Hawkfish's picture

And of course these were the two candidates excluded from the "debates".

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

lotlizard's picture

From that section of the reality-based community whose spokesperson is Ron Paul, of all people.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/october/09/f...

Regarding the right-left thing, libertarians and the anti-corporate left versus the Washington consensus on foreign policy and military spending, it’s just as you say.

up
0 users have voted.

is ever to be seriously challenged, it must be done via an alliance of these two political forces. Though they remain opposed to one another on a host of other issues, I think some sort of marriage of convenience will need to be arranged.

up
0 users have voted.

native

Alex Ocana's picture

What wasn't mentioned is that the Syrian government in Western Aleppo is and has been the ones under siege and attack for years. There are 1,500,000 people living under Syrian and Russian protection. Many of the people in Syrian controlled Aleppo are refugees from Daesh and Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) atrocities in Eastern Aleppo and elsewhere.

Eastern Aleppo has been under control of the so called "moderate rebels" AKA Al Nusra AKA Al Qaedah whose weapons and training are being supplied by the USA, NATO, Saudi Arabia etc. These assholes attack Western Aleppo constantly.

The mainstream media will have you believe that all of Aleppo is under siege and attack by Syrian government when its only the Eastern Al Qaeda controlled half, which has been mostly emptied of civilians fleeing from Al Qaeda and ISIS..

up
0 users have voted.

From the Light House.

estimates of 275K-300K civilians remaining in East Aleppo could be wildly overstated. Other estimates put the number as low as 40K. The fact of the matter is that no one really knows for sure. Reporting from East Aleppo has been notoriously unreliable.

up
0 users have voted.

native

ZimInSeattle's picture

It's regime change du jour: Killary the Neocon

I cannot vote for either the orange anus or Killary. Only Jill is worthy.

up
0 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

is becoming ubiquitous and increasingly blatant. Obama's strategists are losing Aleppo and they are losing Syria. This is making them furious, and I'm afraid, somewhat irrational. Putin will not back down, Assad will not be deposed, and the "American Exceptionalists" who now dominate US foreign policy will neither admit nor accept defeat.

All the recent US bellicosity we are seeing has seriously alarmed the Russian government, to the extent that it has been taking preliminary steps to prepare for all out war. The current situation is already precarious, and is likely to become more so if Clinton is elected. The entire US campaign to "get rid of Assad" is approaching sheer lunacy. There is nothing and no one in Syria that is worth the risk of precipitating WW3. And yet that seems to be precisely the direction in which our leaders are heading.

up
0 users have voted.

native

...is the anti-Russia rhetoric. They know that it's not making the Russians feel more secure and that it's scaring them into pre-preparations for possible war and they are still pushing it forward, like they really don't care if it does.

Gamblers all...just like the ones who wanted us to invade Cuba during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis cuz they were just so certain that the Russians would back down.

Do we really want these high-stakes gamblers (with our lives) in the seats of power? Put Hillary in office and we will be utterly at their mercy.

Got to stop them...

up
0 users have voted.

James Kroeger

in advocating for a Trump presidency, if US foreign policy were the only concern. Trump is hands down, the far preferable candidate in that realm. Not ideal by any means, but definitely preferable. There are however, a broad range of domestic policies that could be very adversely affected by a President Trump.... not the least of which are the Supreme Court appointments he would be likely to make. If you think Scalia and Thomas were bad, just wait. Environmental protections? Non-existent. Civil rights? Nope. And so on.

All of which makes this election something of a toss-up for me: Heads they win, tails I lose.

up
0 users have voted.

native

dervish's picture

are the one thing that gives me pause. On the other hand, I don't want to empower the interventionists. I'm voting Trump, but I realize that it will backfire in many ways.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

I hate when people try to boil it down to a sectarian war. 85% of Assad's forces are freaking Suni!!! There are plenty of Arab Suni tribes loyal to Assad and plenty of people in religous minorities opposed to Assad. Yes the strongest oppistion militias are Salifist extreemist, but that don't make it a Suni Shia war. It is very much a proxy war though.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity forever

lotlizard's picture

From Middle East Eye:
Obama’s Syria policy and the illusion of U.S. power in the Middle East

One of Obama's biggest failures is letting his policy in Syria be determined primarily by the ambitions of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey

Edited:
“FAIL” changed to “Evil” to clarify apparent misunderstanding that I think the article is a FAIL.
It’s Obama’s and the U.S.’s Syria policy which is a FAIL.

up
0 users have voted.
Song of the lark's picture

There are less than 1000 american troops in Syria. I'm doubling the official amount to account for the black ops and others who we don't talk about. It stretches the imagination to believe that this is all Obama's fault. Many players here. We don't control much in this chaos but we pay for some of the killing. Same as the Russians, Saudi's, Assad etc.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

up
0 users have voted.

American troops for the most part, to fight his wars. He uses proxies and mercenaries from all over the globe. One or more degrees of separation keeps his hands looking clean, as the carnage continues. However without continuous US support for the rebels (both overt and covert) the war in Syria would have ended years ago.

Without Russia's active intervention, Assad's army would have succumbed to jihadi forces, and the whole of Syria would now be a nightmarish wasteland, ruled mostly by al Qaida - akin to Libya but worse. Obama's grand plan of having "moderate rebels" take over after Assad's demise has never been other than a neocon pipe dream - an utterly unrealistic form of wishful thinking conjured up in the hallowed halls of DC think-tanks by academic opportunists of every rank. None of them anticipated Putin's timely intervention, and none of them have a clue what to do about it. They are all running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, while Obama is apparently more concerned about his legacy, his golf game, and his healthy fingernails. Talk about a "hands off" leadership style.

up
0 users have voted.

native

Big Al's picture

and identified long before in the Oded Yinon plan, etc.
And there's the Pentagon, the MIC, the thinktanks and Institutes. A lot of players.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

and Oded Yinon / “Clean Break” topic on national TV was, who else? Ron Paul again.

Years ago, perhaps Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel might have — if they had ever gotten the chance. Why do Democrats seem to be much more tightly muzzled and on a short leash than Republicans?

up
0 users have voted.

more tightly muzzled than they are right now. To quote Dylan:

"Counterfeited philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts
Karl Marx has got ya by the throat,
Henry Kissinger's got you tied up in knots".

up
0 users have voted.

native

Big Al's picture

up
0 users have voted.
CambridgePulsar1919's picture

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything Stockman has to say. He's been a nutter, repeatedly blabbering about economic crashes since 2009, and wrong again and again. He scrubs his site of his repeated incorrect predictions, and trumpets the occasional times he gets something right.
Not saying there is or isn't some truth in what he wrote above, but in general he falls into the 'desperate-for-attention crank/crackpot' category with me.
His use of the Repuke/wingnut dog-whistle term "muslim brotherhood" is a huge clue to his nuttiness.
JMO.

up
0 users have voted.
fakenews's picture

Does anyone have a good time lined source that describes how the U.S. involvement in Syria began?

Thanks-

Peace
FN

up
0 users have voted.

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN