Original video: https://southfront.org/end-wars-cheap-us/
Original article: http://10.16.86.131/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/
Many thanks to “RS” for redacting the original article for this video!
Now that the Neocons have hamstrung Trump, and with Trump’s planned impeachment and removal from office still in the future, the world must deal with the dangerous decline of the USA-led power bloc, because the Neocons are back in power and will do anything to reverse this trend. It is obvious that the only “solution” that the Neocons see is to trigger another war. So the question is: “Whom will they strike?”
If the Neocons are out of touch with reality, then everything is possible, even nuking Russia and China. While not dismissing the Neocons’ capacity for violence, it is equally pointless to analyze clearly irrational scenarios, given that modern deterrence theories assume “rational actors” and not madmen running amok.
Assuming a modicum of rational thinking remains in Washington, DC, if the Neocons launch some extreme operation, somebody in the corridors of power will find the courage to prevent it, as Admiral Fallon did with his “Not on my watch!” comment which possibly prevented an attack on Iran in 2007. But the question remains: where could the USA-led power bloc strike next?
The Usual Scenario
The habitual modus operandi is: subvert a weak country, accuse it of human rights violations, impose economic sanctions, trigger riots and militarily intervene to defend “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination.” That’s the political recipe. Then there is “the American way of war,” i.e., the way US commanders fight.
During the Cold War, the Pentagon focused on fighting a large conventional war against the Soviet Union that could escalate into nuclear war. Nuclear aspects aside, such a war’s conventional dimension is “heavy”: large formations, lots of armor and artillery. Immense logistical efforts on both sides are required, which would consequently engender deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps and strategic infrastructure, and a defense in depth in key sectors. The battlefield would be hundreds of kilometers deep on both sides of the front line. Military defenses would be prepared in two, possibly three, echelons. In the Cold War, the Soviet 2nd strategic echelon in Europe was in the Ukraine! — which inherited huge ammo dumps from Soviet times, so there has been no shortage of weapons on either side to wage the Ukrainian civil war. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, this threat rapidly disappeared. Ultimately, the Gulf War provided the US military and NATO one last, big, conventional war, but it soon became clear to US strategists that the “heavy war” era was over and that armored brigades weren’t the Pentagon’s most useful tool.
So US strategists, mostly from Special Operation Forces, developed “war on the cheap.” First, the CIA funds, arms and trains local insurgents; next, US Special Forces embed with the insurgents as front line soldiers who direct close support aircraft to strike enemy forces; finally, enough aircraft are deployed in and around the combat zone to support 24 hour combat operations. The objective is to provide overwhelming firepower advantage to friendly insurgents.
US and “coalition” forces then advance until they come under fire and, unless they rapidly prevail, they call in airstrikes which result in a huge BOOM!!! – followed by the enemy’s annihilation. The process repeats as necessary for easy, cheap victories over outgunned enemies. The strategy is enhanced by providing the insurgents with better gear (anti-tank weapons, night vision, communications, etc.) and bringing in Pentagon or allied forces, or mercenaries, to defeat really tough targets.
While many in the US military were deeply skeptical, Special Forces dominance and the temporary success of “war on the cheap” in Afghanistan made it immensely popular with US politicians and policy advocates. Moreover, this “cheap” warfare resulted in very few American casualties, with a high degree of “plausible deniability” should something go wrong. The alphabet soup agencies loved it.
But the early euphoria about US invincibility overlooked three very risky assumptions about “war on the cheap”:
First, it required a deeply demoralized enemy who felt that resistance to the USA was futile, because even if the US forces were initially limited in size and capabilities, the Americans could always bring in more forces.
Second, it assumed total battlefield air superiority by the US, since Americans prefer not to provide close air support when they can be shot down by enemy forces.
Third, it required local insurgents who physically occupy and control territory.
But none of these assumptions are necessarily true, and even better said, the USA-led power bloc has run out of countries in which these assumptions still apply.
Let’s take a closer look.
Hezbollah, Lebanon 2006
This war involved Israel, not the USA, but it nicely illustrates the principle. While superior Hezbollah tactics and battlefield preparation played important roles, and Russian anti-tank weapons permitted Hezbollah to destroy the most advanced Israeli tanks, the most important result was that a small, weak Arab force showed no fear whatsoever against the supposedly invincible Israeli military.
British reporter, Robert Fisk, was the first person to detect the implications of this change. Fisk observed that in the past Arabs were intimidated by Israeli military power, that if the IDF crossed the Lebanese border, for instance, that Palestinians fled to Beirut. However, beginning with the 2006 Israeli assault on southern Lebanon all of that changed. A small, “outgunned” Arab force was not afraid to stand its ground and fight back against the IDF.
It was a huge change. What Hezbollah achieved in 2006 is now repeated in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere. The fear of the “sole superpower” is gone, replaced by a burning desire to settle the score with the USA-led power bloc and its occupation forces.
Hezbollah also proved another very important thing: the winning strategy against a superior enemy is not to protect yourself against his attacks, but to deny him a lucrative target. Put simply: “a cammo tent is better than a bunker.” The more academic way to put it is: “don’t contest your enemy’s superiority – make it irrelevant.”
In retrospect, the most formidable weapon of the USA-led power bloc was not the nuclear bomb or the aircraft carrier, but a huge public relations machine which for decades convinced the world of US invincibility, superior weapons, better trained soldiers, more advanced tactics, etc. But this is total nonsense – the US military is nothing like the glorified image projected to the world! When did the US last win a war against a capable adversary? The Japanese in WWII?
Russian Operation, Syria 2015
The Russian operation in Syria was neither a case of “the Russians are coming” nor “the war is over.” The Russians sent a very small force, This force did not so much defeat Daesh as change the war’s political context. The Russians made American intervention much harder politically, and also kept them from waging “war on the cheap” in Syria.
The Russians deployed to Syria without the capabilities which could deny American use of Syrian air space. Even after the Turks shot down the Russian SU-24, the Russians only deployed enough air-defenses and air superiority fighters to protect themselves from a similar Turkish attack. Even today, if the Pentagon decided to take control of Syrian airspace, the Russians don’t have enough air defenses or combat aircraft to deny Syrian airspace to the Americans. Such an attack would come with very real American political and military costs, true enough, but the realities of modern warfare are such that the tiny Russian air contingent of 33 combat aircraft (of which only 19 can actually contest the Syrian airspace: 4 SU-30s, 6 SU-34s, 9 Su-27s) and an unknown number of S-300/S-400/S-1 Pantsir batteries cannot defeat the combined air power of CENTCOM and NATO.
The problem for the Americans is a matrix of risks, including Russian military capabilities, but also the political risks of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. Not only would that further escalate the totally illegal US intervention, it would require a sustained effort to suppress Syrian, and potentially Russian, air defenses; that is something the White House will not do right now, especially when the results of such a risky operation remain unclear. Consequently, the Americans only struck sporadically, with minimal results.
Even worse, the Russians are turning the tables on the Americans and providing the Syrians with close air support, artillery controllers and heavy artillery systems, including multiple-rocket launchers and heavy flamethrowers, all of which are giving the firepower advantage to the Syrians. Paradoxically, the Russians are now fighting a “war on the cheap” while denying this option to the Americans and their allies.
Good Terrorists, aka “FSA”, Syria 2017
The Free Syrian Army’s main weakness is that it doesn’t physically exist! Sure, there are plenty of FSA Syrian exiles in Turkey and elsewhere; there are also many Daesh/al-Qaeda types who try hard to look like FSA; and there are scattered armed groups in Syria who would like to be “the FSA.” But the FSA was always a purely political abstraction. This virtual FSA provided many useful things to the Americans: a propaganda narrative, a pious pretext to send in the CIA, a fig leaf to conceal that Uncle Sam was militarily allied with al-Qaeda and Daesh, and a political ideal to try to unify the world against Assad’s government. But the FSA never provided “boots on the ground” like everybody else: Daesh and al-Qaeda, the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Turks and the Kurds. But since the Takfiris were “officially” the USA’s enemy, the US was limited in the support given to these Wahabi forces. The Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah were demonized, so it was impossible to work with them. That left the Turks, who had terrible relations with the USA after the US-backed coup against Erdogan, and the Kurds, who were not eager to fight and die deep inside Syria and who were regarded with great hostility by Ankara. As the war progressed the terrible reality hit the Americans: they had no “boots on the ground” with which to embed their Special Ops or to support.
A case in point is the American failure in the al-Tanf region near the Jordanian border. The Americans and Jordanians invaded this desert region hoping to sever the lines of communications between the Syrians and Iraqis. Instead, the Syrians cut the Americans off and reached the border first, rendering the American presence useless. It appears that the Americans have given up on al-Tanf, and will withdraw and redeploy elsewhere in Syria.
So Who Is Next – Venezuela?
History shows that the Americans have always had problem with their local “allies”. Some were pretty good (South Koreans), others less so (Contras), but US use of local forces always has a risk: the locals often have their own agenda and soon realize that if they depend on the Americans, the Americans also depend on them. Additionally, Americans are not well known for having good “multi-cultural sensitivity and expertise.” They are typically not very knowledgeable about their operating environment, meaning that US intelligence usually becomes aware of problems way too late to fix them (fancy technology can’t substitute for solid, expert human intelligence). The US failure in Syria is an excellent example of this.
Having identified some of the weaknesses of the US “war on the cheap” approach, let’s examine a vulnerability matrix for potential target countries:
Notes: “demoralized enemy” and “air superiority” are guesstimates; “boots on the ground” means an indigenous, combat force in-country (not foreign troops) capable of seizing and holding ground, and not just small insurgent groups or political opposition.
By these criteria, the only candidate for US intervention is Venezuela, where successful US intervention would require a realistic exit strategy. But the US is already overextended and cannot afford to bog down in an unwinnable war. While the Venezuelan opposition could provide “boots on the ground,” the Venezuelan pro-American forces lack the capabilities of the regular armed forces or the Leftist guerrilla groups who tolerated the Chavez-Maduro rule, but who retained their weapons “just in case.” As for terrain, while Caracas might appear relatively “easy” to seize, the rest of the country is more difficult and dangerous. As regards staying power, while Americans like quick victories, Latin American guerrillas have repeatedly proven that they can fight for decades. Therefore, while the USA is probably capable of invading and ravaging Venezuela, it is likely incapable of imposing a new regime and controlling the country.
Conclusion – Afghanistan 2001-2017
Afghanistan is often called the “graveyard of empires,” and Afghanistan may well become the graveyard of the “war on the cheap” doctrine, which is paradoxical since this doctrine was initially applied in Afghanistan with apparent success. Remember the US Special Forces on horseback, directing B-52 airstrikes against retreating Afghan forces? Sixteen years later, the Afghan war has dramatically changed and 90% of US casualties come from IEDs, all the efforts at a political settlement have failed, and victory and withdrawal appear completely impossible. The fact that the USA has now accused Russia of “arming the Taliban” is a powerful indicator of the USA-led power bloc’s desperation. Eventually, the Americans will leave, totally defeated, but for the time being all they will admit to is: “not winning.”
Here’s the dilemma: with the end of the Cold War and Post Cold War, complete US military reform is long overdue, but also politically impossible. The present US armed forces are the bizarre result of the Cold War, the “war on the cheap” years and failed military interventions. In theory, the US should adopt a new national security strategy and a military strategy that supports the national security strategy, and then develop a military doctrine which would produce a force modernization plan incorporating all aspects of military reform, from training to force planning to deployment. It took the Russians over a decade to do this. It will take the Americans at least as long. Right now, such far reaching reform seems years away. Garden variety jingoism (“We’re number one!!”) and deep denial rule the day. As in Russia, it will probably take a truly catastrophic embarrassment (like the first Russian war in Chechnya) to force the Pentagon to face reality. Until then, the ability of US forces to impose their domination on countries which refuse to surrender to threats and sanctions will continue to degrade.
So is Venezuela next? Hopefully not. But if so, it will be one very big mess with much destroyed and little achieved. The USA-led power bloc has long been punching above its weight. Prevailing against Iran or North Korea is clearly beyond current US military capabilities. Attacking Russia or China would be suicidal. Which leaves the Ukraine. The US might possibly send some weapons to the junta in Kiev and organize training camps in the western Ukraine. But that’s about it. None of that will make any real difference anyway, except further aggravate the Russians.
The Russians have succeeded in turning the course of the civil war in Syria with what was an extremely small, if highly skilled, task force. Now, for the 2nd time, President Putin has announced a major withdrawal of Russian forces. In contrast, the thoroughly defeated US has not only claimed the credit for defeating ISIS for itself, but has ostentatiously failed to make any announcement about a withdrawal of its own, completely illegal and mostly useless, forces from Syria. Will they ever learn from their own mistakes?
The era of “wars on the cheap” is over. The world is a different place than it was. The USA has to adapt to this reality, if it wants to retain some level of credibility; but right now it does not appear anybody in Washington, DC is willing to admit this. As a result, the era of major US military interventions might well be coming to an end, even if there will always be some small country to “triumphantly” beat up.
The Duran just put up an insightful article on a similar topic (*). Key quote: In all actuality, however, the “deep state” and its Democrat allies are the real reason why Trump hasn’t been able to succeed in his pledge to improve Russian-American relations
Much of the current ‘Russia Sanctions’ research seems to be the Trump administration diverting the Soros/Globalist establishment to spinning its wheels generating a document that will never be used.
There is no chance that the U.S. will intervene in Venezuela. The Deep State/Dems set no groundwork for that when they held power under Obama/Bush.
Syria is a more complex problem. The current U.S. administration has given clear signals that it is willing to cede ground in Syria to its legitimate leader Assad, but not illegitimate offensive use by Iran and its proxies. The unexpected military incursion by Turkey is badly confusing the situation, and hopes to move forward.
The key to understanding the situation most is, “Trump and the Globalists are on opposite sides.” Conflating the two as somehow being the same side is intentional deception pushed by both a the Iranian and Soros/Globalist propaganda machines. They materially gain if they can continue to keep Russia and the U.S. as ‘enemies’ despite their extensive common interests.
_____________
* http://theduran.com/us-deep-state-democrats-problem-not-solution/
I personally don’t see this acrimony between trump and the Democrats leading anywhere good. I get the feeling that some poor country is about to vilified and pummeled sacrificed just to maybe distract and keep the peace of sorts. Only now the stakes are such violence cannot be contained. When my brother did his psychiatric rounds in med school he told me a story about a crazy woman who got into trouble because she wanted to cut (with a knife) her man “a little bit.” Alas, one cannot cut another being “just a little” and this is where madness and tragedy lies.
This week I watched Wicker Man (1973). If you have not seen this movie it is highly recommended.
If the situation in Syria doesn’t resolve, perhaps this is the reason why: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/middle_east/is-there-really-more-oil-in-the-golan-heights-than-is-saudi-arabia/
Com’on A123,
Trump and the globalists are on the same side but disagree on tactics. Trump is a protege of Kissinger and wants to use Kissinger’s 1970’s tactic of splitting a Russia/China alliance by sucking up to Russia via a Trump & Putin bromance.
The entire North Korea issue was used as a wedge issue to try to split the alliance.
Do you actually believe that Russia and the US have extensive common interests? Like Russia also playing India for a sucker? Or maybe sucking up to Netanyahu, building a multipolar world and getting rid of US dollar hegemony?
The only countries in Syria illegitimately are Israel in the Golan Heights and the US and its proxies in Northern Syria.
A point about “legitimacy”. What we are actually talking about is legality – the Iranians were invited into Syria, just like the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iraqi militias. Once again, the US shows its lack of coherent strategy and fails to use the best tools of the past – major propaganda efforts backed by fig-leaves of legality (in appearance at least) under the UN, or real coalitions of major powers. The original “coalition” formed under Obama would have been quite deadly if the script was followed correctly, but the disastrous results of the Iraqi aggression had left lingering doubts in both civilian and government circles. Hence, the UK voted against intervention and Obama backed down on the “red line” when it became clear that the chemical attack was hardly provable. I think Congress might have voted against it as well. I remember the horror in the air, seeing the news bulletins from the MSM about all the air strikes planned. Also, there was that great moment when Sergei Lavrov managed to arrange the destruction of the chemical weapons. But if that had gone ahead, we all know that Syria would be in ruins right now – a truly sickening prospect. Perhaps Obama himself was reluctant to wear the full “war criminal” label that his fellow “leaders” Bush and Blair got. So the Inherent Resolve became a much milder version, and “war on the cheap” was made that much harder. Trump made a big mistake not immediately announcing the draw-down of the wars in Syria and Afghanistan – the Hillary faction hated him anyway, so it would have been better to actually make progress and still be called “Putin’s puppet”.
Turkey is also moving illegally at this point – they only had authority to supervise the de-escalation zone in Idlib, but more stupidity by the US regarding the Kurds forced their hand in a way. Nobody sensible thinks that Russia really has anything in common with the USA anymore – in fact, the only moment when the USA even considered being friendly was during the years of total weakness during the ’90s. Unfortunately for the US (and fortunately for everyone else, except maybe the ZE) they never got the hand of making alliances and sticking to them, and allowed their previously formidable diplomatic skills to completely atrophy. At this point, what is happening in the USA is very reminiscent of pre-revolutionary activity in France or even Russia – the same kind of language, polarization, and extreme rhetoric is present. If the pro-Hillary faction is unable to remove or destroy Trump, there will be some serious problems coming – because they lit a fire that is impossible to douse with the laughable, but deadly, claim of “Russia”(qualifiers unnecessary anymore, it’s just “Russia” now).
USA and Russia have a great deal in common. For one important thing, we are both Christian civilizations/societies (Rusia more than US now), and we can work together well and fruitfully, if certain globalist entities can be dealt with and removed.
It’s not likely that the “Pentagon will come to its senses” as long as the important decisions there continue to be made by corporate quislings who enrich themselves by waiving the flag while following failed policies, serving Israel and pursuing irrelevant strategies. The corruption is too vast and the actors are too depraved, deluded and selfish. The end of this conspiracy cannot come too soon for humanity.
(And is it just me, or is this fast-cut video editing distracting?)
It’s the modern way, the fast-cut editing, what the kids are conditioned to be used to and accept. It also contributes to a much shorter attention span overall.
Being an oldie, I read the transcript in preference— but can see why it is used to appeal to the much larger young audience.
Good reading here.
Aargh. Just looked at the video.
For 30 seconds.
A cut with every breath the speaker takes.
Makes no sense. Flying american flag alternates with picture of ship then 2 seconds of McCain . . .
and on.
This is no way to build an argument.
But the transcript is great; very interesting. Read the whole thing.
Katherine
At this point, there is little to no sign of any ‘civilian control’ of the Pentagon.
Its rather rare that the civilian government in any way ever challenges the Pentagon. But in the several times when they have had differences of opinion, the Pentagon gets its way.
One of the more notable relatively recent occaisions was when President Dubya wanted to invade Iran, and the Chairman of the JCS, Adm Mullen I believe, said No!
Or more recently, the generals who command the nuke arsenal came out and said that they would not obey an order from President Trump to launch nuclear weapons.
Corporations certainly control the American civilian govenment.
There are certainly some officers who in the later stages of their careers sell out to the defense manufacturers. This is seen in recommendations for weapon systems as well as faking the results of tests for new weapon systems.
But, overall, there is little that I’ve seen that says the high command levels of the US military are under direct corporate control. Perhaps some in the area of how the money is spent on new weapons systems, but not so much in areas of tactics and strategy. They don’t neccessarily oppose corporate objectives, but there is little sign that they deliberately try to achieve those objectives. And the occasions when the oppose the corporate controlled civilian government don’t reallly show that the Generals and Admirals are backing a corporate agenda.
On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that the Pentagon is a force entirely on its own and that its under the control of no one else. Its probably more important to study the idealogies and indoctrination of the military officers as they seem to be the ones in charge. And they also seem to be indoctrinated with ideas that frankly are insane and which will likely lead to the end of human civlization.
Awesome! Partnering with South Front for this video was a great success. Hopefully there will be many more collaborations. Being able to get the Saker message out on multi-fronts (blog,articles,interviews, and now video) is a great idea.
I agree, great collaboration, great article, great video.
Regarding the arrogant, murderous USG, pride goes before a fall.
I’m wondering if Russia is providing the Taliban weapons to use against the US, like the US used against the USSR. What goes around…maybe?
And if the US didn’t have airpower, how good would it be at fighting?
So the US gave kiev Javelins, did Russia give the Novorossiyans Cornets?
They are all unwinnable wars. People fighting for their village are willing to die die for their village and village family. No foreign soldier is ready to give his life for some unpronounceable village. Truth.
So they lose as nobody fights as it is their last day. They will not give the last 10 % and risk dying in some obscure village in a country, they cant place on a map, with a language they dont speak and a culture they dont understand.
Want to limit the empire’s ability to wage war and make it more costly for them to run interventions? Arm those poor countries with cheap and effective weapons. Out of the world’s suppliers, Russian arms meet many of these criterion. Export them en masse, especially AA weapons like the Pantsir and S300/400.
Debatable and obviously not a very moralistic strategy, but when faced with reality and the number equation, pragmatism takes precedent vs (unrealistic) idealism when one is faced with a quandary : destroy or be destroyed.
Ironically, freely available small arms in the US is perhaps the best example of its latent ability to resist foreign ground invasions. Any invading army would need to face a veritable host of local militias/guerrillas, making it very costly to gain ground. It would be insane to even attempt it.
Expand the above concept to the world stage, soon you’ll get an empire which then will be forced to change its tactics and wage a different type of war. Well, at least there won’t be bombs falling on your head … or less likely ;)
I completely agree. However, these ‘poor’ countries must be prepared to fight. Unfortunately, not all of them are… Most politicians keep their people uninformed and quiet, as a way to say ‘everything is ok’… until it is too late.
Pantsir and S300/400 are defensive so no moral questions at all. I agree they should be supplied, and at affordable prices.
A distinct possibility is that USA would not renounce the use of Islamic terrorism which they now try to recycle in Asia against China.
‘Uncovering’ Muslim mass graves in Myanmar cum growing international indignation against ‘human rights abuses’, renewed attacks of pro-Islamic State militants in Mindanao cum protests against the martial law, the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan over China’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, direct claims that China’s Belt and Road initiative aims at military expansion, stirring tensions between India and China and the surprising appeals of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who called for an alliance of Israel, India and what he called an “alliance of democracies” to “strengthen our relationships as our way of life is being challenged by radical Islam, would suggest that USrael is again ‘pivoting to Asia’.
See the comments of William Engdahl:
“The pressure is escalating against the development of China as a global factor. At the same time the Pentagon released its 2018 US National Security Strategy paper explicitly targeting Russia and China as prime USA strategic threat overshadowing that from international terrorism, India, a member of a new alliance fostered recently by Washington to target China, hosted the third international Raisina Dialogue conference. The primary theme was China as “disruptor” power in the world and what to do about that.
The true nature of the three-day meeting in New Delhi was obscured in press accounts but research revealed an extraordinary coming together of forces and interests opposed to China’s game-altering Belt, Road Initiative—the new Economic Silk Road Initiative. Most notable was the fact that Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi, keynote speaker at the Raisina Dialogue in 2017 this year gave the center stage to his “good friend” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was not to foster peaceful development across Asia”.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/02/02/washington-quad-alliance-targets-china/“.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201802031061319139-npr-nuclear-triad-modernization-defense/
This -particularly development of only a little bit won t really hurt you well maybe it will “safe” oops not nuclear armaments -seems to indicate an even more growing standoff between usa and Russia?
Leading to what…apart from more horrendous defence budgets…. ?
Unless the article I read ealier today -sorry cannot locate it-re impending systemic failures of F-35 that even Norway is becoming very nervous about as they are going to buy some….and stuff like this
.http://russia-insider.com/en/us-state-dept-boasts-derailing-russian-arms-deals-worth-several-billions-refuses-provide-examples
This is a rather hopeful article. American hegemony and with it the endless American wars will end, since the USA have overextended themselves. The pure evil of military recklessness and ruthlessness will be over and all the deceptive lies to cover up for those facts will no longer deceive the ordinary people any more. And so in time the whole world will become a more peaceful and humane place for mankind to live on.
I think we all need this kind of hope for the future.
That’s the kind of future envisioned in the (free of charge) sci-fi e-book:
When Hope Came – A Time-Travel Story
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/773568
Another excellent article. However I would disagree about the next target for the U.S. empire. I don’t think Venezuela is on their map at all. The Neocons are rabid Zionists and they run Washington’s foreign policy. Tel Aviv (or Jerusalem) would not allow a major operation that does not in some way contribute to weakening Iran. Iran is their white whale. Venezuela and even North Korea are distractions which would consume time, resources and American morale.
The big missiles deploying against Russia are there to intimidate Putin into thinking twice about intervening in the forthcoming Iran strike.
@hillsboro @ A123: “the forthcoming Iran strike” (by big strong Uncle $cam to please his favourite nephew Little Izzie. You wish. Firstly, the Iranian military presence in Syria is not “for illegal aggression”; that role is reserved for Uncle and Izzie. Here is a simple coloured map of “aggressive” military occupation in Syria:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVBbD7vWsAAb9T2.jpg
Green: Little Izzie’s terrorist proxies SouthWest of Damascus, slap bang up against the barbed wire fence of IDF military in Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan. And SouthEast of Damascus, Uncle and his terrorist proxies slap bang ,n the border with the US/UK military and their terrorist training camps in Jordan. North of Aleppo, “aggressive” terrorists plus their military bosses Uncle and his NATZO buddy? Turkey. But note how small these “US Green Zones” are — nothing like The Islamic State In Syria which Uncle & Izzie started with in 2011. Mere fleabites now, mere “boils on the body politic” of Syria; annoying but no longer dangerous. Thanks to Iran, in large measure, and Iran’s cooperation with other staunch friends of Syria.
Yellow: big strong Uncle $cam and Little Izzie special forces in their new dream project, The Oil State of Eretz Kurdistan. Right now it looks very big on that map, doesn’t it? So did their Islamic State In Syria, not so long ago.
Wait a few months; if that big area of Syria is still coloured Yellow, then I shall concede that Uncle $cam and Little Izzie might still have some grounds for dreaming of “the big strike against Iran”
I ´ve got a bright idea for bad Vlad, soon as he wins his next term at the topo position in the Russian Federation.
U, Bad Vlad, just pick up among your direct aides, among which there is a bunch of nice advisers, just invite and pick up Paul Craig Roberts.
He for sure will accept and he´s got a mountain of experience and gog lots of advices to you on a day by day decision making.
Ah, sure and don´t forget to throw under the bus the whole lot of atlanticists around you.
Thank U, Vlad, for reading me so far.
Well …he may have to have fresh staff in the face of increased hysteria and usa government “stuff” heading his way to work with experienced staff already deal with matters………..I do not think everything is going to be hunky dory just because the elections would be finished.
The neocons in the US have forgotten the old army rule, which goes like this:”He who wants to control everything ends up controlling nothing”. Every empire has learned this rule the hard way, by having it’s empire collapse.
The neocons in the US are still living in the past, when the US had military, political and economic advantages over others. That is now basically history, and they are incapable of understanding it, which creates a dangerous situation for them to do something foolish. Worse, the US military is overextended, having outside America 700 combat bases and 300 supply bases, which certainly cost a heap to maintain. By being overextended, the US military finds itself in a difficult situation of concentrating its forces for any future combat activities against powerful adversaries. I don’t see the US military defeating Iran or North Korea, whose military are strong enough for defense. I also don’t see the military of South Korea backing the US military in any aggression against North Korea. In fact when Trump sent the US Navy to the North Korean coast, the Government of South Korea immediately began covert negotiations with North Korea, trying to prevent any potential war.
As for Syria, the Russian military contingent in the country, while small, was highly professional. It also had the backing of the Russian Air Force in Russia and the Russian Navy in the Caspian Sea and in the Mediterranean. It was fire power which defeated ISIS. The Russians and Syrians would concentrate on a particular sector, defeating ISIS, and moving to the next sector. And yes, the Syrian military was beefed up with new Russian weapons making it a powerful force.
The US military cannot win in Afghanistan.That is absurd. the country is paradise for defense, being made up of mountains, hills, rocks, caves and narrow roads. The Taliban have the advantage. For the US to have any chance of success, its military would need adequate numbers and the ability to deploy, placing brigade next to brigade, division next to division and thus creating a front line. It cannot do that in Afghanistan, as geographic conditions prevent it.
The US neocons have now found themselves in a new situation, which they are having a tough time understanding and accepting. They cannot forget the old times, when they could do basically anything they wanted. I sincerely hope they are not delusional enough to believe that Russia and China can be defeated by a sneak nuclear attack with minimal losses to the US, as that would be the height of insanity. I have read that both the neocons and the US military are analyzing that possibility. I sincerely hope those reports are false.
Finally, the US will have to accept reality as it is emerging. The question is will it ?
Clearly the US does not require its officer class to be intimately familiar with the seminal treatise on military matters, namely “The Art of War”, by SunTzu. He has much to say about the folly of entering terrain like Afghanistan and attempting to dislodge resentful inhabitants. Perhaps it was from witnessing such past attempts that he drew his wisdom.
BREAKING: Terrorists shoot down Russian SU-25 in Syria, pilot killed – VIDEO
“Back in December, President Putin – as he withdrew the majority of Russian forces from Syria – stated that if the “terrorists should raise their heads again”, they’ll be blown up like never before (@3:16 of the video). How will Russia respond to this provocation?” Quote
And who “supplied” the missile to the group…..I always wonder why the jets fly so low too…….
They fly “so low” ‘cos they are CAS, not bombers.
Anonymous
Russians have already responded, by sending combat aircraft to the site and killing more than 30 ISIS terrorists, probably the ones who killed the pilot.
Is Putin at times guilty of over-interpolation? Saker does a good job of rationalizing Putin’s forbearance and disciplined responses. But that could be two smart guys echo-chambering each other’s smartness. Is the rest of the world, mediocre at best, accurately being taken taken account of in this rarefied analysis?
I just wonder whether Putin’s genius is continually misconstrued as weakness by the other side. If it is, and it precipitates a poorly-conceived and ill-fated response, then Putin’s subtleties will have to be called a failure. Just because you’re a great chess-player doesn’t mean you should engage all opponents as though they’re Bobby Fischer (sorry, Anatoly Karpov). What if you’re facing Donald Duck? There’s no telling what the next move could be. Donald could throw himself into a ruinous checkmate and we’re all ashes. Complex systems suffer for the stupidity they must contend with as a matter of course. Are they smart enough to build anticipatory moronocy into their rule-based responses?
He may be playing a masterful game of chess. But his opponent is playing blunt-force checkers. So really a third game is being played, a hybridization, call it chessers. Chessers may best be played by an abandonment of chess rules.
Sometimes Putin’s responses seem so scrupulously refined and calibrated that one wonders if they deliver the right move at the right time. Just an thought.
–FSD
Critiques please of the following hypothesis: One possible function of the “Small Nukes” just announced by the White House would be if some of them were very “dirty bombs”–thus interdicting multiple square kilometers with a payload of primarily deadly radiation. Thus taking away defense forces from simply being in a territory of their own habitation or preferred locus. Thanks in advance.
Maybe you are considering the Neutron Bomb.
There are rumors that it was used in Baghdad Airport on April 2003.
“So, people think that the Americans used a small neutron bomb, a device that killed humans, but left buildings intact. It allowed the military to kill people without damaging real estate. A lot of folks here think that one of these was dusted off and used to wipe out the Iraqi fighters at the airport.” Quote
Source:
Looking back at the Baghdad airport battle in April 2003. Did U.S. use neutron bomb? https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/07/18676664.php
What we had in our country Latinoamérica was a putsch against Spanish PROVINCES led by masons serving the interests of the ziocrown. We got divided into 23 banana republics, with entirely artificial frontiers, isolated, weakened and sometimes balkanized. This was and this is a state of permanent defeat. That’s why any resistance by any of the 23 “republiquetas” is considered by the usual zios as a temporary exception in the normal course of subservience and looting. So the fundamental paradigm is to keep Latinoamérica divided, and sectarian, polarized and balkanized if possible. So, understanding the fundamental tactic, we can comprehend what the zios do here:
1. The prize for the destruction of Spain in America for many of these ziomasons was to become the dominant oligarchy in the divided and weakened territories. They rewrote history and brainwashed everybody here telling that they were “Libertadores” and that the bananas had achieved “independencia”, when in reality, we became servants of the anglozionist empire. The descendants of those oligarchies are still pretty much involved with the ziomasonic lodges and the hierarchical institutions set up by the zios to exert control over local elites.
2. Use of the neighboring territories as logistical bases to plot aggressions against the resisting government. In this case the territory is known as “Colombia”. In this post, we will use a more suitable name: Colonia, because it is indeed a ziocolony.
3. The latest attempt to physically kill the government of Venecita was directed from the “embajada gringa” in Bacatá! There is never a diplomatic staff: they are almost always agents of the alphabets, pentagon or even moss-aidniks!
4. The zios groom and project any local criminal that will further their agenda. The worst criminal, traitor and murderer that the tragic history of modern Latinoamérica has suffered is known as “Varito”. This monster is a freemason, member of the Committee of 300, murderer, drug-dealer (he was in the Bill Clinton list and his family worked with Pablo Escobar!), ex-governor of Colonia, active collaborator with the Moss-aid and Strat4. He set up a paramilitary right-wing army, entirely supported by the Moss-aid, using their terror tactics, trained by a moss-aid agent: Yair Little (who was in Sierra Leone making sure that the blood diamonds remain bloody, and later in Nigeria, to make sure that the zios can steal the petroleum by instigating a religious civil war and puppetizing a weakened post-government).
5. Varito sends his paramilitaries to Venecita with 3 main missions:
a. hire hitmen to kill random people, to sow chaos and more importantly, to claim that those deaths are caused by the Chavista government
b. direct and/or carry out the protests which must be as violent as possible, so they can accuse the government of being “represivo”. This includes hired agitators against the government: 350 dollars per day for leaders and 70 for subalterns, and even teenagers drugged with Captagon (brought by the CIA and the DEA) to sow disorder
c. attacking or intimidating the suppliers of food and other essentials to the population. This includes the deviation of trucks with food to Colonia
6. As much as possible, only ziomedia. In Colonia, the media is 100% owned and controlled by zios, and even worse, the people in Colonia is so brainwashed that they naively believe and trust the ziopropagandists. For example, the most important newspaper: “El Tiempo de Mentir” is owned by the family of the current governor! The zios even gave him a “Peace” (War) Nobel Prize for being such a good lackey. In Venecita, the non-Chavista ziomedia belongs to the Caprinos (a family of marranos).
7. Total financial blockade and strangulation: The usual money war against a former ziocolony.
8. The zios apparently decided that the future governor of Venecita must belong to the tribe: first, the marrano mofo Caprinos, and lately, the despicable crypto Cortina Machete (a CIA agent!, a tropical Merkel)
Yes, I always wondered why Spanish territories in Latin America were divided between so many states and if this really had to be done. Thank you for giving us the answer.
Good info thanks.
Trump’s main aim is to stay at White House. Not improving relationship to any other country really. In fact Trump is very typical politician at that perspective.
US troops being airlifted out of the frying pan and into the fire. Posted by Mike-Florida 5min ago on SyrPer: US troops leaving Iraq > US seems increasingly resigned to fact that a pro-Iranian and increasingly pro-Russia government in Baghdad is not going to tolerate presence of US forever. Russia has begun delivery of T-90 tanks to Iraq, while Baghdad & Tehran have signed multiple cooperative security agreements. Iran & Turkey both cooperated with Iraqi govt establishing no-fly zone northern Iraq during attempted Kurdish insurgency, openly encouraged by Israel. Majority Iraqis resent presence US troops. US military is shifting soldiers, weapons & equipment out of Iraq to Afghanistan.
http://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/02/05/america-pivots-hybrid-war-iran-iraq-afghanistan/
I think you’re overlooking the Donbass – Novorossiya. The capacity for US funded/armed Neo Nazi mischief is enormous. It amazes me that the understandable Russian refusal to fight again a war on her soil doesn’t extend to Donbass. A war IS being fought on Russian soil – in Eastern Ukraine. And Russia is making a mistake in not fighting back more aggressively; which as far as I know ( not very much at all!) they’re not.
As a follow up to my reply to A123 below, I include this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL
Just a useful insight into just how bewildering the array of “Wars on the Cheap” “coalition partners” can be. Another source of their cheapness too: getting other countries to provide the cannon fodder, air strike pilots, and most importantly, appearance of legality/legitimacy.
In the graph at the bottom of the page, it is most encouraging to see that New Zealand – my nation – is only involved as “humanitarian assistance”. Though even that apparently innocent phrase can cover a multitude of war crimes.
Final thought: Isn’t one of the greatest tragedies too the fact that all NGOs, charities, journalists, medics, and UN representatives have been tainted by their involvement in either participating or giving cover to these war crimes? It is not coincidence that charities, journalists and medics are all being killed in larger numbers lately – they lost their previous status as neutral entities by allowing themselves to be co-opted into the war criminals’ agenda of death, destruction and robbery. Particularly disgusting are the NGOs which encourage destabilization of target nations, not to mention advocate for bombing in the country to be “saved”. How long, O Lord, how long?