Obama Increases Tensions with Russia - Signs Defense Bill Authorizing Jihadists Easier Accesss to Surface-to-Air Missiles

Surface to Air Missiles (a/k/a/SAMs) are not weapons that any reasonable person would wish to see provided to the extremist Sunni Jihadist militias fighting in Syria. These terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda offshoot, are heavily backed by Saudi Arabia and by the US (despite false claims by our government that it only provides assistance to "moderate rebels"). These radical extremists are essentially acting as our proxies in Syria on the ground fighting against the current regime of Bashar Al-Assad and his ally, Russia. The use of US-provided SAM missiles by these terrorist organizations risks the shooting down of Russian planes with American weapons. And yet, that is exactly what our Lame Duck President, Barack Obama, has chosen to do in the waning weeks of his Presidency.

Russia has called a US decision to ease restrictions on arming Syrian opposition groups a "hostile act" that would directly threaten Russian military forces in Syria.

Maria Zakharova, foreign ministry spokeswoman in Moscow, said on Tuesday that the policy change, set out in the annual defence policy bill signed into law by President Barack Obama last week, would lead to weapons ending up "in the hands of jihadists with whom the sham 'moderate' opposition have long acted jointly".

The bill gives the next US administration under Donald Trump the authority to send Syrian rebels surface-to-air missiles.

"Such a decision is a direct threat to the Russian air force, to other Russian military personnel, and to our embassy in Syria, which has come under fire more than once. We therefore view the step as a hostile one," Zakharova said in a statement.

I would consider arming these barbarous and murderous groups with weapons that risk such dangerous escalation of the Syrian conflict, as a hostile act, too, if I were a Russian. It certainly increases the chances of a military confrontation between US forces and Russian forces in the area, since we have "boots on the ground" in Syria, and our war planes frequently fly missions over Syrian territory. Indeed, our air forces have been blamed for numerous civilian deaths there by Amnesty International.

By signing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) recently passed by Congress (by a large bi-partisan margin in both houses) that included provisions allowing "rebel groups" easier access to shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles also known as MANPADS, Obama, put his stamp of approval on increasing tensions with Russia on the eve of his administration's handover of the executive authority to President-Elect Trump.

While Trump has called for better relations with Russia, no one really knows what will happen in the future. This is especially true since many Republicans and Democrats in Congress are on board with regime change in Syria or, as is the case with the Democrats, for punishing Russia for the the distorted perception, deliberately and unceasingly promoted by many Democratic party figures, including Obama himself that Putin interfered in the US election to help Trump win and cost Hillary Clinton the victory she rightly deserved.

The Obama administration is close to announcing a series of measures to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 presidential election, including economic sanctions and diplomatic censure, according to U.S. officials.

The administration is still finalizing the details, which are also expected to include covert action that likely will involve cyber operations, the officials said. An announcement on the public elements of the response could come as early as this week.

Toying with the lives and fate of millions of innocent civilians in the Middle East, and with the lives of our own service members in the military, in order to score political points, has sadly become par for the course by both parties. The only question is how bad will things get if Syria further spirals into a larger military disaster for the US? Trump will be put under intense pressure from all sides to act the way the neocons want him to do from members of his own party, by the Democrats who have already effectively accused him called of being a traitor and calling his his Presidency illegitimate, and by the military industrial complex: the CIA and other intelligence operatives who favor intervention for their own bureaucratic reasons, generals and admirals in our armed forces hungry for further combat actions to burnish their own career credentials, and lobbyists for defense contractors who stand to gain economically from an increase in the sale of their "products" to any and all sides in such conflicts. Hell, I can already foresee future headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post, and non-stop coverage on CNN and MsNBC, demanding Trump take a stronger, more militaristic stance in Syria and Eastern Europe against the Russian Bear. We all know how our corporate media loves to pound the war drums for increased ratings and ad revenue.

What can one say but "Thanks Obama" once more?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Remember when the Russians were the ones who committed one of the classic blunders and invaded Afghanistan? And it wasn't going well for them, because invading Afghanistan never does, but we had to get in there too, of course, because we always have to get in there, just like a cosmic meddling Mary Worth, and we gave weapons, I think Stinger missiles, to the precursors of the Taliban? Which they later used against us and/or our allies?

I can't remember exactly when that was, maybe during the Reagan years, but I'm sure someone here does. The point is that there is no need to do it again, unless you're a weapons manufacturer or someone who wants to get into it with Russia (who could that be?) and/or someone who wants to have those weapons used against US soldiers at some point.

up
0 users have voted.

Emmet

enhydra lutris's picture

sitting government, which was under attack. We then decided to turn it into "Russia's Viet Nam" by supplying the anti-government forces. It is an interesting historical period, with the US, of course, siding with the reactionary far right against a more liberal faction intent on modernizing and liberalizing the country.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

I was paying as little attention to politics as possible during that era, and I don't think I ever knew that.

up
0 users have voted.

Emmet

DunDealgan's picture

James A Michener wrote about this situation in his minor work "Caravans". He was stationed in Kabul after WWII and saw that the educated group around the king would eventually want to modernize the country. He believed that the rural tribes-people and their mullahs would react strongly against the reforms and that the government would look to its nearest progressive ally, the Soviet Union, for help. Michener than asked what would the American government do. We are still paying for what they did.

up
0 users have voted.

"People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases."

CB's picture

on the advice of his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Take note of his one finger salute. That same salute is used by ISIS/Daesch to day.

The CIA operation was called Operation Cyclone.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan....
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken; funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

Reagan took over in 1981 and put the program on steroids which culminated in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. Bush's response turned the Middle East into a flaming hell hole that burns uncontrolled to this very day.


The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslem's or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslem's? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Damn, it's déjà vu all over again.

up
0 users have voted.
Bisbonian's picture

airliner is shot down by a surface to air missile. Stupid motherfucker.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

sojourns's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

The US may have trouble getting the manpads through Turkey as it seems the Turks have turned on ISIS and Al Queda, at least for now. So long as the missiles don't get into Kurdish hands.

So the other route is to give the manpads to the Saudis who them gives them to ISIS. Could the manpads end up in Iraq shooting at our own fighter jets? or against probably more likely attack helicopters in Mosul. Could we have just armed ISIS in Mosul?

One thing about ISIS as some have noted, when they get a bloody nose in Syria/Iraq, they will react by terrorist acts against civilians mostly in Europe. The US may have just armed ISIS to take down commercial jets in Western Europe against NATO allies. Wonder if in such a case if the media in the EU will still blame the Russians for everything.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

Just screw it all up worse before exit middle-of-the-road?

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

mentioned, maybe Obummer is hoping that Trump will do so much damage that people will come back eagerly to the lesser evil Democrats. It might be the only way people ever come back to that party in enough numbers and I would not put anything past these people in the name of "winning elections."

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

snoopydawg's picture

and I too agree with Russia's statement. There's only one reason for giving them those weapons and it's not for self defense.

The story about Russian soldiers finding a mass grave of the citizens of Aleppo who had murdered by our moderate rebels didn't get much play in the press either.
Neither did the story about those rebels be heading the 12 year old boy.
Or when Hersh exposed that Assad wasn't the one who used the sarin gas on the Syrian people, but again our rebels. And it was given to them by either Turkey or the CIA which they got from Gaddafi's weapons stockpiles and were running them out of the Benghazi embassy. That's what the Benghazi hearings should have been about, but I'm pretty sure some of those congress members knew what was going on their when it was attacked.
But they can't let the American people know that they are working alongside the same group of terrorists that attacked us and then attacked our troops in Iraq now can they?
People have to continue to believe that our troops are defending our country and our freedoms.
Good thing that Obama passed that anti propaganda bill.
I still want to know what the goal is for passing it.
Shut down websites like this or put people like me that don't believe THEIR propaganda in camps?
Lots of money going out for it though, while they cut the safety net for millions of people here at home.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

Nobel Peace Prize winner for president.
/S
America has been at war for Obama's entire tenure. He also set a new record for most countries bombed by any president since the country was founded. This Constitutional lawyer also oversaw the evisceration of the War Powers Resolution giving future presidents carte blanche power to wage covert war anywhere on the globe. Quite the legacy for this Peace Prize winner.

Of course there are also other legacies. He managed to save the ailing private health care industry with his for-profit Affordable Care Act. Then there was his "All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy" that installed enough pipeline in the US to go around the world twice.

up
0 users have voted.
asterisk's picture

that one of the terrorist threats was a 16-year-old kid born in Denver. A lot of the foreigner kids were probably just as guilty of something or other.
Terrorists don't need no damn trials.

'Course we did have to torture a few folks.
Oh, sorry. I meant we provided pre-trial detainees at Guantanamo with medically-mediated alternative ingestion for their nutritional arrangements.

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

Money from the guy who invented dynamite. I saw the award as a hopeful act after the disaster of Bush presidency. Alas ...not so much in actuality.

up
0 users have voted.

Obama is the war mongering president. Of course the he does it in a passive aggressive way. And God's irony. Trump may end up being the peace president. He may save us from nuclear war with Russia at the price of the laying low of the American people into poverty and darkness.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Something about not having a plan in place for who's going to rule the country after Gaddafi was gone.
But I guess he doesn't regret it enough because he's doubling down in Syria. Plus he's been funding, arming and training the terrorists groups that people in this country think we are at war with.
I don't know who he thinks is going to run Syria if Assad is ever overthrown, but whoever that is, I don't think that they will have Israel's best interests in mind.
This is one of the reasons why so many countries in the Middle East have been invaded and leaders removed.To make Israel the sole superpower in the Middle East. Funny isn't it that they haven't put any of their men and women in harms way.
I don't know how to wake the American people up and look through the government's propaganda about the reasons for the war of terror.
I feel so helpless seeing what the people in those countries have and are going through.
Only sociopaths can not care about the suffering and deaths of millions of people just because of where they live.

up
0 users have voted.

were very reluctant to bomb Libya, but Hillary was insistent on it. At least according to this New Yorker article:

Lévy said that he returned to Paris and told President Nicolas Sarkozy that humanitarian intervention wasn’t enough. “The real objective had to be to topple Qaddafi,” he told me. Sarkozy agreed, and Lévy became his emissary. Lévy accompanied a Libyan opposition leader to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lobby for U.S. involvement.* “It was hard to convince the Americans,” he said. “Robert Gates was totally opposed. Obama as usual was hesitating. But Hillary got it.”

The Trump disaster is coming up. I'm disappointed in Obama's failure to "change the World", but it doesn't matter anymore. The lesson is that we have to change the World ourselves.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

he'll get no respite from my disgust and dislike of him. He's worse than a Tea Bag Repugnant, at least they have the audacity to be honest in their hate while Obama smiles in our faces as he sticks that knife in our backs. He paved the way for Trump, he gets no quarter from me, EVAH.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Amanda Matthews's picture

'Party' off. The Clintons made out like the bandits they are. Old Hopey-Changey might not have all that much time to score like they did considering he's setting us up for Armageddon as he's scooting out the door.

Petty, hateful, greedy, power-hungry sh*ts, the lot of 'em.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

edg's picture

So did the Libyan people that were killed or turned into refugees. They got it real good.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

Both presidents had no balls when it came to foreign policy and war making. They dumbly followed whoever squeezed the tightest.

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

I think they were involved in most of the killing and destruction. This idea that the US is reponsible for all the trouble in th MENA district doesn't take into account macro issues of COLLASPSE, OVER POPULATION, and several others like drought , religion, dictatorship etc. We did supply the matches no doubt. It would have happened anyway as the world is shifting and "coming apart" to steal line from Rogue One.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

self-sustaining nation rest squarely on the shoulders of the Three Furies - Hillary Clinton (Megaera 'the jealous'), Samantha Power (Alecto 'constant anger') and Susan Rice (Tisiphone 'avenger of murder') along with their enabler, Barack Obama.

Without external meddling, this civil war would not have occurred.

You really need to read the following report:

The Libyan Civil War: Context and Consequence
Author(s): James Siebens, Benjamin Case
Published by: THINK International and Human Security
Published: August 2012
Abstract
The 2011 Libyan Civil War has been widely portrayed as an ideal example of a popular uprising overthrowing a corrupt dictatorship with the aim of establishing basic human rights and democracy. The international intervention in the war has been presented as an ideal model for future humanitarian intervention. This THINK Special Report contextualizes the 2011 Libyan Civil War by outlining the historical conditions that made such a civil war possible, and even likely, and explains how the intervention of foreign forces was largely motivated by the political and strategic objective of removing and replacing the Qaddafi regime. This report finds that the pursuit of democratic reform on the part of the opposition was far from the only cause of the civil war, and that the foreign military intervention in Libya may have in fact exacerbated the negative consequences of the civil war.
...
Even considering the violence, the initial response of the Libyan security forces was not very disproportionate relative to governmental norms in North Africa and the Middle East. In 2010 and 2011 the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria all violently attacked protestors for challenging the status quo, despite the fact that the movements those governments were facing were predominantly non-violent. On the other hand, Libya’s government was responding to a violent opposition, part of which was destroying public property and attacking police. The violence in Libya was far from a few instances of rioting and looting in an otherwise peaceful movement; it appears that from its inception, the Libyan opposition was not a political protest so much as an insurrection. There are other significant distinctions between the predominately non-violent “Arab Spring” movements, and the Libyan uprising. Whereas the Arab Spring movements were largely composed of previously apolitical people, driven by spontaneous grass-roots organizing and social media, in the Libyan opposition movement these elements were primarily led by pre-existing organizations and individuals who had opposed the government in their country for years, many of whom were already engaged in subversive work. While contingents of the protestors were surely seeking democracy and respect for human rights, others were using violence to overthrow a government they did not like, and governments as institutions almost universally respond to revolts of this sort with force.
...
Causing the collapse of any government without adequate planning and preparation to effectively manage the aftermath of such a collapse is irresponsible and morally reprehensible. This includes ensuring a sufficient dedication of manpower, resources and political will on the part of intervening powers before upending an entire society. One would think that the persistent violence resulting from the regime change operations and under-resourced occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq should have driven home this lesson for NATO members. Instead, NATO’s actions in the 2011 Libyan Civil War have discredited the organization as a good-faith broker of R2P intervention, and increased the dangers of Islamist extremism in the Maghreb over the long run. Furthermore, the international intervention in Libya has further tarnished the reputations of the UN and the ICC as stewards of international justice. The failure of the UN to support the AU’s efforts to forge a peace plan or to rein in NATO once the true nature of its intervention became clear has highlighted a general disregard for African interests and sovereignty. The failure of the ICC to uniformly prosecute offenders of international law from all factions involved in the Libyan Civil War has further undermined the international credibility of that court, and the laws it purports to uphold.

Ultimately, the most dire and immediate consequences of the war will continue to play out for ordinary Libyans, and for Africans across the region. NATO apparently considers these consequences to be acceptable. The question that remains is whether or not the judgment of history will agree with their assessment.

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

made all those Libyians kill each other. And that theory has about as much credibility as the one where Gaddafi wanted to make a pan African gold standard with gold coinage and so the fiat bankers had to kill him. Clinton and Rice spent how many days in Libya? Widen your focus it was a bunch of things perhaps including Harridan Incorporated.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

Obama’s Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
March 19, 2011
We’d like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character to it. Far from it. Unless President Obama’s better instincts manage to reign in his warrior women—and happily, there’s a chance of that—the United States could find itself engaged in open war in Libya, and soon. The troika pushed Obama into accepting the demands of neoconservatives, such as Joe Lieberman, John McCain and The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol, along with various other liberal interventionists outside the administration, such as John Kerry. The rode roughshod over the realists in the administration.
The press is full of reports about how Clinton, Rice and Power pushed Obama to war. The New York Times, citing insiders, reports that Obama shifted to intervention in Libya only under pressure from the trio: “The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity.”

U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies
British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse
...
The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

  • Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
  • The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
  • France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
  • The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar’s Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
  • The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Myth that Qaddafi would massacre civilians and the lack of intel

“Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence,” the Foreign Affairs Committee states clearly.
...

Widen your focus

My focus has been much, much wider than you realize.
Here's some hints:RASCOM, Libyan central bank & gold Dinar, African Monetary Fund, nationalizing oil & gas (partnering with China), water (GMMR), opted out of AFRICOM.
The west had a decades old desire to oust Qaddafi including 2 failed covert attempts. The American government, banks and corporations hate socialism. How many countries and governments have been destroyed since the end of WWII due this factor?

16 Things Libya Will Never See Again

  1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.
  2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.
  3. Having a home considered a human right in Libya.
  4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
  5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83 percent.
  6. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms are all for free.
  7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need, the government funds them to go abroad, for it is not only paid for, but they get a U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.
  8. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.
  9. The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
  10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally.
  11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.
  12. A portion of every Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
  13. A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.
  14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $0.15.
  15. 25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.
  16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.

Gaddafi’s Libya was Africa’s Most Prosperous Democracy
Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratizing the economy and giving economic power to the majority.

Libya: From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

up
0 users have voted.
SparkyGump's picture

This is probably the most idiotic military blunder since the invasion of Iraq.

up
0 users have voted.

The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.

Jazzenterprises's picture

Thank-you Steven.

All I have to say is moderate rebels my ass.

Peace.

up
0 users have voted.

Progressive to the bone.

The CIA acting as agent of the neocon war establishment successfully planted the false flag of election interference to setup justification of acts of war against Russia which Obama is now implementing-- with the full support of the democratic party base and political establishment of both major parties--aided by the mass media. Propaganda works.

In effect, we see parts of the deep state rising to the surface to openly assert their control over the actions of the state above and beyond those of an elected president.

up
0 users have voted.