The United States: Destroyer of Nations

The United States: Destroyer of Nations


The United States: Destroyer of Nations

After the Donald Trump administration’s decision to recognize the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, the national aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in their own state have been severely dashed by Washington’s move. Ever since the formation of the United States, it has been American policy to destroy aspirant nations like the internationally-recognized State of Palestine.

The first nation destroyed by the United States was the Cherokee Nation, or Tsalagihi Ayeli, which, beginning in 1794, was slowly decimated by forced removals from territory in Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. If Tsalagihi Ayeli was given its rightful independence and sovereignty, it would be seated in the United Nations General Assembly between the delegations of Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia.

In what was known as the 1830s “Trail of Tears,” the forced relocation of the Cherokee Nation and its dependencies of Lenape-Delaware, Natchez, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewa, Shawnee, and Cherokee Freedmen (freed African-American slaves of the Cherokee) sub-nations to “Indian Territory” in modern-day Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation was all-but-destroyed through disease, famine, and outright genocidal extermination. The Cherokee Nation was led by a chief, or “uku,” and maintained a functioning capital city in New Echota, a few miles north of what is present-day Calhoun, Georgia. The Cherokee Nation maintained a legislature called the Council House, a Supreme Court, and a Cherokee language newspaper. The Cherokee Nation maintained low-level relations with the United States, Great Britain, Spain, and France until the US government took over Cherokee foreign relations. After European-Americans — mostly ancestors of the present-day white racists who dominate Georgia and the Carolinas and wholeheartedly support Trump — began forcing to the west the Cherokee and protectorate tribes out of the southeastern United States, New Echota became a ghost town.

Re-established as an exiled government in Tahlequah, in the Oklahoma Indian Territory, the Cherokee Nation was disbanded by Washington in 1907. In 1938, the Cherokee Nation was reconstituted, however, its sovereignty was limited by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bureau, influenced by corporate mining, oil drilling/pipeline, and casino interests, continues to suppress the sovereign tribal rights of hundreds of recognized Native American tribes. A successor state to the Cherokee Nation boasts of recognition by the State of Palestine, which is fitting given the similarities of American involvement in the genocide of the Cherokee and Palestinian peoples. The Cherokee and Choctaw Nations are legally entitled to non-voting delegates in the US House of Representatives. However, unlike the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guahan (Guam), American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas, the US Congress has taken no action to seat Native delegates.

The destruction of the Cherokee Nation was the first of many such actions taken by US imperialists, actions that continue to this very day in Palestine, Puerto Rico, Guahan (Guam), and other nations and territories around the world.

While not as distinct a nation-state as the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, which mainly existed in what is now Mississippi, revolved around not a capital city, but a 600 BC religious mound, Nanih Waiya, or “Mother Mound,” built by the Choctaws’ ancestors in what is now Winston County, Mississippi. Like the Cherokee, the Choctaw were forcibly removed from Mississippi to Oklahoma Indian Territory by the US government, acting at the behest of European-American settlers who invaded and occupied their lands. Today, the descendants of these white occupiers constitute the pro-Trump Republican governing authorities in Mississippi. The Choctaw Nation maintained relations with Great Britain, France, and Spain. The first American president and arch-imperialist George Washington decided that the Choctaw and other Native American peoples should be “culturally transformed” to American citizens because their societies were “inferior” to European-Americans. President Thomas Jefferson continued Mr. Washington’s policies.

The Creek Confederacy was also systematically destroyed by the United States. Known as Este Mvskokvlke, the Creek or Muscogee Nation was forcibly removed from Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and the Florida panhandle to Oklahoma Indian Territory. There was not a single capital city of the Creek Confederacy but there were four major towns: Abihka, Coosa (Kusa), Tuckabutche, and Coweta. The Creek Confederacy consisted of a multitude of tribes banding together in a commonwealth of sub-nations. The Creek Confederacy consisted of the Yuchi, Koasati, Alabama, Coosa, Tuskeegee, Coweta, Cusseta, Chehaw (Chiaha), Hitchiti, Tuckabatchee, Oakfuskee, and several other tribes. In 1799, William Bowles, a native of Maryland who supported the British during the American Revolution, proclaimed the State of Muskogee, with its capital at Miccosuki, near present-day Tallahassee in Florida. Muskogee maintained relations with Great Britain, Spain, and First French Republic. Bowles, an agent for British King George III, was recognized by London as the Ambassador for the “Creek and Cherokee Nation.” Bowles later denounced Native treaties with the United States and Spain. Eventually, he was captured by the Spanish and died in a Havana prison in 1805.

The next major Native American nation to be destroyed by the United States was the Seminole Nation and its Miccosukee and Black Seminole dependencies in Florida. In 1821, the US Army began the forced removal of the Seminole people from Florida to the Oklahoma Indian Territory. Prior to its destruction by the United States, the Seminole Nation maintained relations with Great Britain and Spain. The Seminole Nation never signed a peace treaty with the United States, making it the only Native American nation to refuse a treaty with the federal government, one which would have eventually been violated by Washington, in any event.

Today, a US government-coopted Seminole Nation, many of its leaders being Republican supporters of Trump, exists in Oklahoma, with a capital in Wewoka. The Miccosukee Nation, however, continues to exist on a reservation bordering Everglades National Park in southern Florida. The unofficial capital is the Tamiami Trail Reservation. One thing that makes the Miccosukee Nation stand out from other tribal nations is the rightful absence of the US flag anywhere on the reservation. The Miccosukee flag of horizontal bands of white, black, red, and yellow is ubiquitous. The US flag is obviously treated as not only a foreign flag but the flag of an illegal occupier.

The Sac Nation (Thakiwaki) existed on and near the shores of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. Constantly relocated by the federal government, they joined the Black Hawk War against the European-Americans in 1832. The Sac and Fox Nation was eventually forcibly removed from the Upper Middle West to Oklahoma Indian Territory.

The Black Hawk or Sauk Nation, which dominated northern Illinois and Iowa along the Mississippi River, maintained a capital at Saukenuk, near present-day Rock Island, Illinois. The Sauk put up a spirited defense of their lands, fighting against the forces of the American genocidal president Andrew Jackson. US troops conducted their own scalping campaigns against Sauk refugees, killing those Native peoples attempting to escape the American Army during the Black Hawk Wars of the early 1830s.

The genocide of the Native American peoples would be repeated with wars against the Navajo, Lakota Sioux, Dakota, Ute, Hopi, Cayuse, Yakima, Klikitat, Mohave, Spokane, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Goshute, Nez Perce, and the Cheyenne Nation (Tsêhéstáno) and the Kingdom of Hawaii. European-American racism against Native Americans continues under Trump, who recently grabbed 85 percent of the Bears Ears and 50 percent of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, both sacred to Native American peoples, to hand over to uranium mining companies and natural gas fracking firms. Trump and his supporters are no different than the genocidal Americans of the past who systematically destroyed peaceful Native American cultures and emergent nation-states. Americans should forever live in shame over their Holocaust of the Native American peoples and nations.


The Columbus Day and the Jewry

On October 9, protesters in Port of Spain, Trinidad, sprayed red paint on statue of Christopher Columbus. The protesters also asked the city mayor to remove the statue as it represents the Holocaust of native people by European colonists since 1498 CE.

Nearly 52 US cities have replaced Columbus Day with the Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

On May 24, 2012, Charles Garcia (Jew) wrote for CNN: “Over the course of the last decade, Spanish academics and historians (including Jose Eruogo, Celso Garcia de la Riega, Otero Sanchez and Nicholas Dias Perez) have concluded that Columbus was a Marrano, a crypto-Jew, whose survival depended on keeping his Jewish identity sealed and hidden in the face of antisemitic ethnic cleansing.”

Garcia also claimed that Columbus voyage was not meant to reach the spice-rich India but to liberate Jerusalem from Muslims.

In December 2013, historian Dr. Federick Starr (Johns Hopkins University) in an article, entitled, ‘So, Who Did Discover America?, claimed that Muslim scholar and adventurer, Abu Raihan al-Biruni (born 973) discovered Americas centuries before Columbus without sailing to that part of the world.

On October 13, 2014, Rachel Dalia Benaim in an article at the Jewish Daily Forward boasted: “For Jews, at least, there may be a little-known reason to keep on marking this day: Columbus was Jewish. Not only that, but he was basically the Theodor Herzl of the 15th century.”

Watching the video below, one would agree with Harvard historian Dr. Niall Ferguson who in his 2006 book, The War of the World, claimed that some of the greatest mass murderers of modern times were Jewish.

Christopher Columbus made four voyages (1492, 1493, 1498 and 1502) in search of discovering a short and safe route to Al-Hind (Hindustan) for Spanish Queen Isabella (died 1504) to invade the legendary land of spices and gold – most part of which like Spain were ruled by Muslims. However, all of its voyages ended in discovering parts of Americana by accident.

The Spanish Christians named Al-Hind as India (Latin for region of the Indus River), which is part of Pakistan now. The region was conquered by a teenage Muslim commander Muhammad Bin Qasim in 712 CE.

In November 2014, when Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that Muslims found Americas before Columbus – the major Israeli propaganda media outlets (BBC, CNN, Fox News, WP, NYT, WSJ, etc.) ridiculed his claim.

Letter to my American friends

Letter to my American friends

The Saker

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.


Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

  1. The USA needs a military
  2. One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
  3. The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
  4. During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
  5. The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
  6. The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
  7. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.

By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico!

Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war?

Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.

Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

  1. The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
  2. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
  3. The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945

Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation DropshotPlan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?


And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.


I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.

How would you define “success”?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?

  • The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia
  • The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and
  • The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel

Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!

And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?

Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

The Saker

Trump and American History Have Been Assassinated

Paul Craig Roberts

August 21, 2017

When Trump was elected I wrote that it was unlikely that he would be successful in accomplishing the three objectives for which he was elected—peace with Russia, the return home of offshored US jobs, and effective limits on non-white immigration—because these objectives conflicted with the interests of those more powerful than the president.

I wrote that Trump was unfamiliar with Washington and would fail to appoint a government that would support his goals. I wrote that unless the ruling oligarchy could bring Trump under its control,Trump would be assassinated.

Trump has been brought under control by assassinating him with words rather than with a bullet. With Steve Bannon’s dismissal, there is now no one in Trump’s government who supports him. He is surrounded by Russophobic generals and Zionists.

But this is not enough for the liberal/progressive/left. They want Trump impeached and driven from office.

Marjorie Cohn, whom I have always admired for her defense of civil liberty, has disappointed me. She has written in Truthout, which sadly has become more like PropagandaOut, that the House must bring articles of impeachment against Trump for his abuse of power and before he launches a new civil war and/or nuclear war.

This is an extraordinary conclusion for a normally intelligent person to reach. What power does Trump have? How does he abuse his non-existent power? The ruling Establishment has cut his balls off. He is neutered. Powerless. He has been completely isolated within his own government by the oligarchy.

Even more astonishingly, Marjorie Cohn, together with 100% of the liberal/progressive/left are blind to the fact that they have helped the military/security complex destroy the only leader who advocated peace instead of conflict with the other major nuclear power. Cohn is so deranged by hatred of Trump that she thinks it is Trump who will bring nuclear war by normalizing relations with Russia.

Clearly, the American liberal/progressive/left is no longer capable of rational thought. Hate rules. There is nothing in their lexicon but hate.

The American liberal/progressive/left has degenerated into idiocy. They think that they are fighting “white nationalism” in the White House and that Trump is a champion or symbol of “white nationalism” and that there will be no victory until Trump and all symbols of “white nationalism” are obliterated.

Little do they understand. Ajamu Baraka spells it out for them in CounterPunch. White Supremacy, he writes, is inculcated into the cultural and educational institutions of the West. Liberal and leftist whites are also white supremacists, says Baraka, and Trump and the “alt-right” are nothing but a superficial useful platform on which the white supremacist American liberal/progressive/left can parade its self-righteousness. Ajamu Baraka’s conclusion is “that in order for the world to live, the 525-year-old white supremacist Pan-European, colonial/capitalist patriarchy must die.” It is not difficult to see in this statement that genocide is the solution for the white plague upon humanity. Little wonder the “alt-right” gets exercised by the anti-white propaganda of Identity Politics.

Non-white immigration will finish off the shards of remaining European civilization. All current demographics indicate that all of Europe and North America will sooner than you expect be occupied by non-white majorities.

The problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as it is that they are taught to hate whites by white liberal/progressive/leftists. The destruction of statues will not end with Robert E. Lee’s. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are next. They owned slaves, whereas the Lee family’s slaves were freed by will three years prior to the Lincoln’s invasion of the South. The Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials will have to be destroyed also as they, too, are momuments to racism. Indeed, according to the Identity Politics of the Liberal/progressive/left the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are White Supremacy documents written by racists. This doubles the indictment against Thomas Jefferson and adds all of the Founding Fathers to the indictment. All are guilty of institutionalizing White Supremacy in America.

The uninformed insouciant Average American may think that this is a joke. But no. It is the orthodoxy of the white American intellectual class. It is taught in all the universities.

In Atlanta they are talking about erasing the heads of the South’s generals carved into Stone Mountain. Mount Rushmore in South Dakota will be next. It has carved into it the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. All racists, and Roosevelt was a colonialist and imperialist to boot. Lincoln was the worst racist of all.

Economist/historian Thomas DiLorenzo reminds us that “to his dying day, Lincoln was busy plotting the deportation of all the black people in America, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves.”

The following statements are all statements that are in Abe Lincoln’s Collected Works:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How did Lincoln in the face of his own words and deeds get to be the hero who liberated blacks from slavery? The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, as Lincoln’s Secretary of State complained. It was a war measure that only applied to slaves under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy in hopes of fomenting a slave rebellion that would pull Southern soldiers off the front lines to rush to the protection of their wives and children. In 1861 the year the North invaded the South, President Lincoln said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” (First Inaugural Address). In 1862 during the war, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”

Lincoln was elevated to the undeserved position of black liberator by the historical lies made up by white liberal/progressive/leftists who hate the South. They are so consumed by hate that they do not understand that the hate that they teach will also devour them. They should read Jean Raspail’s book, The Camp of the Saints. People taught racial hate do not differentiate between good and bad members of the people they are taught to hate. All are equally guilty. As one Third Worlder wrote to me, “all whites are guilty,” even those such as myself who speak out against the West’s atrocities against the darker-skinned peoples.

The Amerian liberal/progressive/left has long been engaged in demonizing white people exactly as Nazis demonized Jews and Communists demonized capitalists. One would think that the liberal/progressive/leftists would be aware of what happened to the Jews and to the Russian, Chinese and East European capitalists and bourgeois middle class. Why do the liberal/progressive/leftists think they will escape the consequences of teaching hate?

What has Charlottesville taught us other than that the hate expressed by the liberal/progressive/left exceeds the hate expressed by the white nationalists themselves. When it comes to hate, the White Supremacists are out-gunned by the liberal/progressive/left.

Hate is the hallmark of the American liberal/progressive/left, and hate always ends in violence.

The Northern ruling economic interests had no interest in devoting resources to a war to free slaves. They wanted the Union held together so that there would be no competition for the lands west of the Mississippi and so there would be an agrarian sector to which to market northern manufactured goods protected by tariffs against lower priced British goods.

The northern work force didn’t want any freed slaves either. The large number of recent Irish immigrants driven out of Ireland by the British starvation policy called Lincoln’s war “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” What freed slaves meant for the northern working class was a larger labor supply and lower wages. In 1863 when the Republicans passed the draft, the Irish in Detroit and New York rioted. The rioters took out their anger and frustration on northern blacks, many of whom were lynched. It is not clear to me whether more backs were lynched in the North during the war or in the South during Reconstruction. If there are any memorials to the Irish, those racist statues will have to be taken down also. Perhaps even the Statue of Liberty is racist.

And we haven’t yet heard from Native Americans. In his excruciating history, The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians, Ralph K. Andrist describes the genocide of the Plains Indians by Lincoln’s Civil War generals, William Tecumseh Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, Grenville Dodge and other of the first war criminals of the modern age who found it a lot easier to conduct warfare against Southern women and children than against armed troops. Against the Native Americans Lincoln’s generals now conducted a policy of genocide that was even more horrible and barbaric than Sheridan’s destruction of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lincoln historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo provides a synopsis of the genocide of Native Americans here:

During the eight year presidency of General Ulysses S. Grant, 1868-76, the Union generals conducted a policy of extermination against the Native Americans. Entire villages, every man, woman, and child, were wiped out. The Union Army’s scorched earth policy starved to death those Indians who escaped fire and sword.

Professor DiLorenzo writes:

“Sherman and Sheridan’s troops conducted more than one thousand attacks on Indian villages, mostly in the winter months, when families were together. The U.S. Army’s actions matched its leaders’ rhetoric of extermination. As mentioned earlier, Sherman gave orders to kill everyone and everything, including dogs, and to burn everything that would burn so as to increase the likelihood that any survivors would starve or freeze to death. The soldiers also waged a war of extermination on the buffalo, which was the Indians’ chief source of food, winter clothing, and other goods (the Indians even made fish hooks out of dried buffalo bones and bow strings out of sinews). By 1882, the buffalo were all but extinct.”

Indian warriors who were captured were subjected to the type of trials and executions that the George W. Bush regime gave Saddam Hussein: “hundreds of Indians who had been taken prisoner were subjected to military ‘trials’ lasting about ten minutes each, according to Nichols (1978). Most of the adult male prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to death—not based on evidence of the commission of a crime, but on their mere presence at the end of the fighting.” In other words, POWs were executed, for which the US executed German officers at Nuremberg.

The Union massacre of the Indians began before the Civil War was won. DiLorenzo reports:

“One of the most famous incidents of Indian extermination, known as the Sand Creek Massacre, took place on November 29, 1864. There was a Cheyenne and Arapaho village located on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado. These Indians had been assured by the U.S. government that they would be safe in Colorado. The government instructed them to fly a U.S. flag over their village, which they did, to assure their safety. However, another Civil War ‘luminary,’ Colonel John Chivington, had other plans for them as he raided the village with 750 heavily armed soldiers. One account of what happened appears in the book Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972) by the renowned military historian S. L. A. Marshall, who held the title of chief historian of the European Theater in World War II and authored thirty books on American military history.

“Chivington’s orders were: ‘I want you to kill and scalp all, big and little.’ ( Marshall 1972, 37). Then, despite the display of the U.S. flag and white surrender flags by these peaceful Indians, Chivington’s troops ‘began a full day given over to blood-lust, orgiastic mutilation, rapine, and destruction—with Chivington looking on and approving’ (Marshall 1972, 38). Marshall notes that the most reliable estimate of the number of Indians killed is ‘163, of which 110 were women and children’ (p. 39).

“Upon returning to his fort, Chivington ‘and his raiders demonstrated around Denver, waving their trophies, more than one hundred drying scalps. They were acclaimed as conquering heroes, which was what they had sought mainly.’ One Republican Party newspaper announced, ‘Colorado soldiers have once again covered themselves with glory’ (Marshall 1972, 39).

DiLorenzo reports: “The books by Brown and Marshall show that the kind of barbarism that occurred at Sand Creek, Colorado, was repeated many times during the next two decades.”

General Sherman, a war criminal far in excess of anything the Nazis were able to produce, wrote to his wife early in the Civil War that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.”

His wife responded: Conduct a “war of extermination” and drive all Southerners “like the swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing” ( Walters 1973, 61).

DiLorenzo observes that Sherman did his best to take his wife’s advice.

The extreme hatred and barbarity to which the Northern war criminals had subjected Southern non-combatants broke like fury over the Plains Indians. Distinguished military historians have described the orders given to General Custer by Phillip Sheridan as “the most brutal orders ever published to American troops.”

Clearly, if we are taking down statues, we can’t stop with Robert E. Lee. We will have to take down the Statues of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and all the rest of the Union war criminals who implemented what they themselves called “the final solution to the Indian problem.”

The designation of the northern invasion of the South as a civil war is itself a lie. The term “civil war” is used to cover up the fact that the North initiated a war of aggression, thus removing the sin of war from the North. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. However, the South had no interest or intent to control the government in Washington. All the Southern states did is to use the constitutional right to end their voluntary association with other states in the United States. The South fought because the South was invaded. Southerners did not regard the War of Northern Aggression as a civil war. They clearly understood that the war was a war of Northern Aggression.

As brutal as Lincoln’s war criminal armies were to Southern civilians, the inhumanity of the brutality toward Southern people escalated during the long period called Reconstruction. The Northern ruling Republicans did their best to subject the South to rule by the blacks while Northern “carpetbaggers” stole everything that they could. No white Southern woman was safe from rape. “Civil War” buffs have told me that there were southern towns in which all the women were hidden in the woods outside of town to protect them from the Republican Union soldiers and the former slaves that the Republican agents of Reconstruction encouraged. What happened to the South at the hands of the Republicans was no different from what the Russians and Americans did in Germany when the Wehrmacht surrendered. The demonized KKK was an organization that arose to protect what remained of the South’s honor from unbearable humiliations.

Consequently, for decades no Southern person would vote Republican. The Democrats lost the “solid South” by aping the Reconstruction Republicans and again bringing Reconstruction to the South, using federal force instead of persuasion.

No real facts are any longer taught in the US about the so-called “Civil War.” In the place of the actual history stands only lies.

In an accompanying guest contribution, economist/historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo explains the real reason that Lincoln invaded the South. He shows that Lincoln’s success in conquering the South destroyed the political character of the United States that had been formed by the Founding Fathers. He also shows that the Union policy of conducting war against civilians created the precedents for the massive war crimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom does the opportunity arise to acquire an enlightening and accurate history lesson from one article. That is what Professor DiLorenzo has delivered.

The Story of Trump’s Letter to Assad – Al-Akhbar قصة رسالة ترامب الى الأسد

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

US envoy to Damascus: We are ready to cooperate against ISIL
Syrian President gives the envoy documents verifying US security officials’ involvement in terrorism

The White House’s announcement that Syria’s President Bashar Assad’s fate shall be decided by the Syrian people was not a surprise. It was being introduced since the early fall, on the eve of (and after) the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the successor of President Barack Obama who once showed readiness to conduct a military strike against the Syrian government in the summer of 2013

Ibrahim Al-Amine

Since two years or even more, the west raised the voice against policies applied in Syria. The issue is not only about what is going on in Europe. Unlike the prevailing impression that the US majority doesn’t care for what is taking place in Syria and that the political, military and security administrations are forbidding any argument, some information and circulations appeared to show that the discussion is going tougher day by day, but there are parties closing the doors and shutting the eyes. What the presidential elections had uncovered, about the professional crisis which all US media outlets are suffering from, also reflected the deep ethical crisis of those outlets being controlled by authoritative powers on both administrative and economic levels. Even the media elites show greater superiority than that among the decision makers. Such superiority became popular in several countries. The US presidential elections’ results made clear that the media is not able to stick all the time with the course of their audiences.

Tulsi Gabbard, former Democratic Representative for Hawaii in the US Congress, had previously declared controversial opinions on what is going on in our countries. She is the woman whose voice rises in institutions and media outlets, and she represented one of the undesired voices of the administration’s powers. She decided to closely learn the truth of what is happening in our region, namely Syria. In the mid of last summer, Gabbard’s idea to make a fact-finding visit to Syria matured. All preparations indicated that the visit might be made in last October. The matter required some measures, starting with providing the required money for the trip, to prepare the agenda and then to obtain the visit permission from the House Committee on Ethics.

Things were done in late summer. However, what happened is that Gabbard, known by strong candidate Donald Trump’s team, was involved in the elections. She didn’t like Hillary Clinton at all, and she frankly supported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, grabbing Trump’s electoral team’s attention. And as Trump won the elections, he discussed with his team the possibility of convincing Gabbard with taking a prominent governmental rank in his new administration. Meanwhile, Trump learned of her intention to visit Syria, and in turn asked her to delay the visit until he takes power because he has something to tell her.

Gabbard agreed with him. On October 21, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump received Gabbard for more than two hours and a half. She told him she couldn’t delay the visit more, and her program is scheduled to mid January between Syria and Lebanon, and that she will be there when he will officially takes office. So she congratulated him ahead, and apologized for not being able to attend the inauguration.

During the meeting, Trump asked Gabbard to explain her viewpoint on the situation in Syria and Iraq. After he heard her, he expressed his agreement on her analysis. She told him that she is preparing data to enact a law that forbids US citizens from cooperating with any person who has direct or indirect ties with terrorist groups around the world, especially ISIL.

Trump asked her: Are you going to meet Assad in Damascus?

Gabbard: Probably!

Trump: Well, ask him if he is ready to communicate with us, and I’m ready to call him by phone. But let it be known from now that the cooperation will be entitled fighting ISIL. He will find that overthrowing him is outside the circle of my interests. The issue will stop circulating gradually. As for the direct contact and canceling sanctions, both issues need time; the important thing is that we know how he will act and how much he is ready to cooperate with us away from the Russians and the Iranians. We must change our policy towards Assad. The direct containment could be good. The man stayed in his position. The reality says that we have to deal with him in case we wanted to confront ISIL indeed.

The pragmatic virtual Trump finds that Obama’s policy had damaged the American power in the Middle East. He holds his predecessor responsible for keeping the region open in front of the Russian power, considering that his administration has to return and participate in directing the region, especially with respect to Syria and Iraq. In this regard, Trump wants to change all of the administration’s policies, whether internally or abroad. He pledges not to stand face to face with Russia, and he wants to besiege Iran and end the nuclear deal’s effects, even without giving up on it. He believes that Syria is the place where understandings could be made with the Russians and others.

Trump sees that ISIL is the main threat to everybody. He is pretty sure that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have role in supporting ISIL as well as all al-Qaeda branches. Despite his hatred of Iran, he believes it is more serious in fighting ISIL. He doesn’t want to only make a core political change, but also wants to change the strategy. Thus, he believes that the important issue right now is to focus on ISIL and ignore all other goals, including overthrowing Assad.

Trump knows he has many rivals in the US, starting with parties, media and intelligence to reach part of the army. However, he doesn’t want to retreat.

After Gabbard’s meeting with Trump was over, she asked to intensify the preparations for the trip. Yet what happened is that a campaign to hamper Gabbard was launched inside the US through the CIA and the FBI agents. All those who were concerned with the visit were contacted in an attempt to convince them to change their minds. Later on, the State Department started its efforts to confront Gabbard’s trip.

The US ambassador to Lebanon, Elizabeth Richard, received a sort of “instruction” that she has to hinder the visit. Richard had previously announced to the Congress, then when she arrived in Lebanon, that her mission is limited with confronting Hezbollah and the Syrian government. She even didn’t welcome the Congress member’s visit, yet she doesn’t know -officially- the goal of the visit. She assumed that she will definitely be the reference who would adjust the visit, set the dates and list the prohibitions.

It wasn’t too late before the ambassador was surprised with a message that went against her desire. She has been already confused with her administration’s decision to freeze her job along with other diplomats across the world. She wasn’t into setting a serious schedule. But Gabbard herself asked her aides to notify the US embassy in Beirut that they don’t want them to make any preparations or arrangements. She told her team: “I don’t want anything from the embassy there. No security protection, no logistic measures, no hospitality, no dates organization and not even participating in my visits.” The US ambassador was informed about that.

The ambassador thought that she has to act quickly. As Gabbard’s aides arrived in Beirut a couple of days before she did. Richard immediately asked to meet with them in the embassy’s headquarters, in the presence of the security official to explain details on the dangerous situation in Lebanon with certain recommendations. The security chief offered that Gabbard stays at the embassy. But once again, the ambassador, deprived from Lebanon’s blessings, was shocked. Gabbard’s aides told her that it is none of her business and that nobody wants something from her, adding that Gabbard prefers that her visit remains out of any protocol. She wants to select with whom she will meet, where and how.

The embassy’s security staff pressed to set conditions starting with the name of the Lebanese official security figure that will accompany Gabbard in her visit, with an explanation of the areas she cannot visit at all (the red zone) or the area that she is preferred to visit only in the day (the yellow zone) and the area open in day and night (the green zone). The embassy’s security official gave Gabbard’s aides phone numbers to be contacted when necessary, saying confidently: “We have units spread all over Lebanon that are ready to intervene when necessary.”

On January 14, Gabbard took off from Washington heading towards Beirut Airport. She arrived with her husband, the movie director and the rich man of Indian origins Abraham Williams, and the accompanying delegation on Sunday. Her aides were waiting for her, along with a force from the Embassies Security Apparatus of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. They were delegated after contacting Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq. Leaving the airport, the delegation headed directly to al-Yarzeh to obtain visa to enter Syria from the Syrian embassy in Lebanon. Syria’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdul Karim Ali, was there. And he received them until the visas were issued.

What happened is that the American guest’s delegation chose a short way to reach al-Yarzeh, which means that she passed through Beirut’s southern suburb, classified within the red zone. Thereat, Gabbard asked: Where we are?

Answer: We are in the Hezbollah zone.

Gabbard: But where are the military bases and the militants?

Answer: Such things do not exist at all.

Gabbard: Are you sure we are passing through a zone that is fully controlled by Hezbollah?

Answer: Yes! And within minutes we will be in a zone that is under the Lebanese army’s full control, where the office and house of the Syrian ambassador are located.

There, the Black Panthers Force of the Internal Security Forces was waiting. It appeared later that the US embassy’s security officials weren’t pleased by the help of the Embassies Security Apparatus. Their information provides that it is influenced by Hezbollah, and that they prefer the “Black Panthers”. Gabbard’s aides accepted it, but as she arrived at her room in one of Beirut’s hotels, the US ambassador called asking to meet with her. Gabbard apologized reiterating: I want nothing from the embassy.

On Monday, at 8 in the morning, the convoy left the hotel heading directly to the Syrian borders. On the Lebanese border checkpoint, the convoy headed towards a security team that facilitated their entrance to the top visitors lounge. There, they were awaited by members of the protocol team in the presidential palace, headed by a Syrian presidential envoy. As the Lebanese security personnel remained on the border point, Gabbard and her delegation headed straight away to meet with President Bashar Assad.

President Assad received her with his familiar smile. He shook hands with the delegation members and asked Gabbard about her trip, who in turn started the conversation at once: “I am here on a fact-finding visit. I want to visit several areas in Syria if I could, and I want to meet with people on the ground. I need help in presenting documented and certain data on who is sponsoring the terrorist organizations, namely ISIL and al-Qaeda. I am here under a congressional permission. I wanted to come a month earlier but the delay happened due to President Trump’s demand.”

Gabbard later talked with Assad about her vision on the stance in Syria and the region. She said: “I met with President Trump before I came here. I am carrying his letter for you. He asked me to reflect to you his vision and thoughts regarding the region, and he demanded something else straightly.”

As Assad continued listening to her, Gabbard went on to expose her viewpoint and what she heard from the US President-elect. She reiterated to him the US administration’s remarks on its allies’ policies in Syria, counting Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Gulf States. She said that Trump’s ultimate priority is fighting ISIL, and that when approaching the Iranian issue, he will take into consideration that it is a very serious country in fighting ISIL. President Trump wants radical shift in the US policy towards Syria and the region.

Assad asked her: Is this the impression you made after meeting with Trump?

Gabbard replied: No, they are his thoughts, he asked me to reflect them to you. We, in short, want to cooperate with you on fighting ISIL. Trump is impressed with Russia’s brilliance in dealing with the Syrian issue, and he wants to make understandings with the Russians in Syria.

Gabbard suddenly asked Assad: If President Trump called you, would you respond?

Assad smiled: Is it hypothetical or a suggestion?

Gabbard: It is not hypothetical.

Assad: Is it your suggestion?

Gabbard: No, it is a question for you from President Trump. He told me to ask you. And I am repeating: If he called you would you respond?’

Gabbard was stunned with Assad’s fast reply: Of course, and I will give you a phone number through which I can be easily reached.

At that point, Gabbard seemed a bit surprised, as if she assumed that Assad won’t respond on the spot and he will ask for some time before he replies. Later, it appeared that the Trump administration believed that Assad will ask for some time before he replies to discuss the issue with his Russian and Iranian allies. The Americans frankly thought that Assad “won’t dare to contact them without Moscow’s permission.”

Before the end of the meeting, Gabbard explained to Assad once again that she needs to make a tour inside Syria to prepare her report on what is going on there. She asked if she could visit Aleppo after the Syrian army and its allies had regained full control of it.

In some two hours, Assad listened to Gabbard’s offer and then presented his viewpoint and information on what is happening, and the US direct or indirect role in supporting terrorist groups. After that, Gabbard entered another office where she met for extra two hours with Syria’s First Lady Asmaa Assad, in which they discussed social issues and the negative aspects of the war on Syria’s people. She went after to meet with Syria’s Mufti Badreddine Hassoun, visit Damascus Grand Mosque and then meet Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem. After all, she met with businessmen and academics who displayed the consequences of the war on Syria.

The delegation spent their night in an official hospitality headquarter. On that night, Gabbard accepted Assad’s Counselor Bouthaina Shaaban’s dinner invitation, in the presence of Syria’s UN Envoy Bashar al-Jaafari. Later, a meeting with Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem was organized.

In the next morning, an official political and security team from the Presidential Palace accompanied the American guest onboard a presidential plane off to Aleppo. Thereat, another team was waiting, and Gabbard made a two-hour tour in which she met with the Governor of Aleppo, MPs, clerics, activists and citizens. She also visited a migrant camp.

Before leaving Aleppo, Gabbard’s aides received a call that President Assad decided to receive her Wednesday all day, and that he made preparations to hold detailed meetings, including a business lunch, and that he will provide her with invulnerable documents confirming direct involvement of US security personnel, under a request of former President Barack Obama, in supporting terrorists in Syria. This is what happened, and Gabbard decided to delay its return from Wednesday to Thursday. On Wednesday, Gabbard met Assad twice in the presence of Syrian government officials who carried with them documents and files. He showed her what not only surprised her, but rather shocked her. She was given enough evidence to examine when she returns to the US.

Gabbard returned to Beirut on Thursday, in which her agenda was supposed to be full of previously scheduled meetings with respect to a list that for the first time didn’t include the figures the US embassy obliges any American visitor to meet with. The suggestions came along with Gabbard’s desire. Her agenda included visits for the three primates, the Army Commander, Director General of General Security, former President Emil Lahhoud and Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, stressing that the meetings won’t be attended by any of the embassy’s staff. She had assigned a date to meet with Ambassador Richard in a quick and sneak meeting.

The surprise was that the office of the Parliament Speaker refused to organize a meeting with Speaker Nabih Berri. Soon after, Gabbard’s team learned that the US Embassy intervened, informing the Speaker’s office, as well as those concerned in the presidential and governmental palaces, and even the security leaderships that the visit was not coordinated with the State Department.

Gabbard learned the issue, and asked her aides to inform the ambassador that what she is doing is illegal and that the White House will be informed about the issue, in which the ambassador will be held accountable for doing what contradicts with the US interests.

Before leaving Beirut, Gabbard held a non-scheduled meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari who happened to be in Beirut. She then traveled to the US, where she was awaited by a crowd of rivals who launched against her a media campaign that lasted several weeks. Gabbard, however, was waiting a date to meet with President Trump to inform him with her visit’s results, and in the meantime she started preparing her special report on Syria… which has its own long story as well!

Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper

وفد أميركي في دمشق: مستعدون للتعاون معكم ضد داعش
الرئيس السوري يسلم الموفد وثائق تؤكد تورّط أمنيين أميركيين في الإرهاب
نقلت غابارد عن ترامب: أنا تخليت عن مطلب إسقاط الأسد بالقوة (أرشيف)
ابراهيم الأمين
علان البيت الأبيض أن مصير الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد يقرره الشعب السوري لم يكن مفاجئاً. له مقدمات تعود الى مطلع الخريف الماضي، عشية (وبعد) انتخاب دونالد ترامب رئيساً للولايات المتحدة الاميركية خلفاً للرئيس باراك أوباما، الذي وصل به الأمر حدّ الاستعداد لتوجيه ضربة عسكرية الى الحكومة السورية صيف عام 2013

منذ عامين وأكثر، ارتفعت الاصوات في الغرب احتجاجاً على السياسات المتّبعة في سوريا. الأمر لا يقتصر على ما يجري في أوروبا. وبخلاف الانطباع السائد أن الغالبية الاميركية غير مهتمة لما يدور في بلاد الشام، وأن الادارات السياسية والعسكرية والامنية مانعة لأي نقاش، تظهر معطيات ومداولات أن النقاش صار يحتدم يوماً بعد يوم، لكن هناك من يغلق الابواب والأعين. وما كشفته الانتخابات الرئاسية عن الازمة المهنية التي يعانيها الاعلام الاميركي بكل تنوّعاته، عكس أيضاً الازمة الاخلاقية العميقة التي تصيب هذا الاعلام الممسوك من قوى نافذة في الادارة والاقتصاد. حتى النخب الثقافية فيه، تُظهر فوقية أكبر من تلك الموجودة عند أهل القرار. وهي فوقية صارت معمّمة في كثير من دول العالم. وأظهرت نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الاميركية عجز الميديا عن الامساك كل الوقت باتجاهات الجمهور.
تولسي غابارد، عضو في الكونغرس عن ولاية هاواي، ومن فريق الحزب الديموقراطي. سبق لها أن أدلت بآراء بدت سجالية حول ما يجري في بلادنا. والمرأة التي يبرز صوتها في المؤسسات وفي الاعلام، مثّلت أحد الاصوات غير المرغوبة من قوى النفوذ في الادارة. قررت التعرّف عن قرب على حقيقة ما يجري عندنا، وتحديداً في سوريا.
منتصف الصيف الماضي، نضجت عند غابارد فكرة زيارة سوريا في رحلة تقصّي حقائق. الترتيبات كان تشير الى إمكانية حصول الزيارة في تشرين الاول الماضي. احتاج الامر إلى بعض الإجراءات، من توفير تمويل الرحلة، الى ترتيب جدول الاعمال، الى الحصول على موافقة لجنة الاخلاقيات في الكونغرس على الزيارة.
الامور أنجزت أواخر الصيف. لكن الذي حصل أن غابارد التي يعرفها فريق المرشح القوي دونالد ترامب، كانت منخرطة في الانتخابات. لم تكن معجبة أبداً بهيلاري كلينتون، وأيّدت صراحة المرشح الديمقراطي بيرني ساندرز، وهو أمر لفت انتباه فريق ترامب الانتخابي. وبعد فوز الاخير في الانتخابات، بحث مع فريقه إمكانية إقناع غابارد بتولي منصب حكومي بارز في إدارته الجديدة. وأثناء التواصل والبحث، علم ترامب بنيتها زيارة سوريا، فطلب إليها تأخير الزيارة ريثما يتسلم مهماته، لأن لديه ما يقوله لها.

وافقت غابارد على التأجيل. وفي 21 تشرين الثاني عام 2016، استقبلها الرئيس المنتخب دونالد ترامب لأكثر من ساعتين ونصف ساعة. أبلغته أنها لا تقدر على تأجيل الزيارة أكثر، وأن برنامجها محدد منتصف كانون الثاني بين سوريا ولبنان، وأنها ستكون هناك يوم تولّيه الحكم رسمياً. فقدمت له التهاني مسبقاً، واعتذرت عن عدم قدرتها على حضور حفل التنصيب.

خلال اللقاء سألها أن تشرح له وجهة نظرها حول الوضع في سوريا والعراق. وبعد سماعها، أبلغها أنه موافق على تحليلها. وقالت له إنها تعمل على إعداد معطيات لأجل سنّ قانون يمنع الاميركيين من أي تعاون مع أي شخص يكون له علاقة مباشرة أو غير مباشرة بالمجموعات الارهابية في العالم، وخصوصاً تنظيم داعش.
سألها ترامب: هل ستلتقين الأسد في دمشق؟
قالت له: على الأرجح!

قال لها: حسناً، اسأليه إن كان مستعداً للتواصل معنا، وأنا مستعد للاتصال به هاتفياً. ولكن، ليكن معلوماً منذ الآن أن التعاون سيكون عنوانه قتال «داعش». سيجد أن مطلب إطاحته من منصبه ليس في دائرة اهتماماتي. وهو عنوان سيختفي من التداول تدريجياً. أما التواصل المباشر وإلغاء العقوبات، فهما أمران يحتاجان الى وقت، والمهم أن نعرف كيفية تصرفه، ومدى استعداده للتعاون معنا بمعزل عن الروس والإيرانيين. نحن يجب أن نغيّر سياستنا تجاه الأسد. الاحتواء المباشر قد يكون مفيداً. الرجل صمد في موقعه. الواقع يقول لنا إنه يجب أن نتعامل معه إذا كنا نريد مواجهة داعش فعلياً.

ترامب، البراغماتي والعملاني، يرى أن سياسة أوباما خرّبت النفوذ الاميركي في الشرق الاوسط، ويحمّل سلفَه مسؤولية ترك المنطقة مفتوحة أمام النفوذ الروسي، معتبراً أن على إدارته العودة والمشاركة في إدارة المنطقة، ولا سيما ملفي سوريا والعراق. وفي هذا السياق، يريد ترامب تغيير كل سياسات الادارة، خارجياً كما داخلياً. وهو يتعهد بعدم المواجهة مع روسيا، ويريد محاصرة إيران وإنهاء مفاعيل الاتفاق النووي، ولو من دون التخلي عنه. ويعتقد أن سوريا هي ساحة التفاهمات مع الروس والآخرين.
يرى ترامب أن داعش هو الخطر الاساس على الجميع. هو متأكد من دور السعودية وقطر وتركيا في دعم داعش وكل فروع القاعدة. ورغم كرهه لإيران، يعتقد أنها الأكثر جدية في قتال داعش. وهو لا يريد إجراء تغيير سياسي جوهري وحسب، بل يريد تغيير الاستراتيجية، ولذلك يعتقد أن المهم الآن التركيز على داعش وتجاهل كل الاهداف الاخرى، بما في ذلك هدف إطاحة الأسد.
يعرف أن لديه خصوماً كثراً في أميركا، من الاحزاب الى الاعلام والمخابرات، وصولاً حتى قسم من الجيش. لكنه لا يريد التراجع.

بعد انتهاء اجتماعها مع ترامب، طلبت غابارد تكثيف الاستعدادت للسفر. لكن الذي حصل هو انطلاقة حملة لتعطيلها، داخل الولايات المتحدة، من خلال رجال الاستخبارات «سي. آي. إيه.» و«أف. بي. آي.». وحصلت اتصالات مع كل المعنيين بالزيارة لأجل إقناعهم بالعدول عنها. ومن ثم بوشرت المساعي من وزارة الخارجية أيضاً لمواجهة رحلة غابارد.

السفيرة الاميركية في بيروت، اليزابيث ريتشارد، تلقّت ما يشبه «التعليمة» بأن عليها عرقة الزيارة. سبق لها أن أعلنت أمام الكونغرس، ثم لدى وصولها الى لبنان، أن مهمتها محصورة في مواجهة حزب الله والحكومة السورية. وهي لم تكن مرحّبة أصلاً بزيارة عضو الكونغرس، لكنها لا تعرف ــ رسمياً ــ هدف الزيارة. وافترضت أنها ستكون حكماً المرجع الذي يضبط الزيارة، ويحدد المواعيد، ويضع المحظورات.

لم يتأخر الوقت حتى فوجئت السفيرة برسالة معاكسة لرغباتها. هي تعيش أصلاً حالة من التوتر الكبير جرّاء قرار إدارتها تجميد أعمالها مع دبلوماسيين آخرين في العالم. هي لم تكن في وارد وضع برنامج جدّي. لكن غابارد نفسها طلبت من مساعديها إبلاغ السفارة الاميركية في بيروت أنها لا تريد منهم المشاركة في التحضيرات ولا حتى في الترتيبات. وقالت لفريقها: لا أريد من السفارة هناك أي شيء. لا حماية أمنية، ولا إجراءات لوجستية، ولا استضافة، ولا ترتيب مواعيد، ولا مشاركتي في الزيارات. وتم إبلاغ السفيرة الاميركية بالأمر.

فكرت السفيرة في أن عليها التحرك سريعاً. ومع وصول مساعدي عضو الكونغرس الى بيروت، قبلها بأيام، سارعت السفيرة ريتشارد الى طلب الاجتماع بهم، في مقر السفارة، وأحضرت المسؤول الأمني لكي يشرح تفاصيل عن الوضع الخطير في لبنان، مع توصيات معينة. وعرض المسؤول الأمني أن تبيت غابارد في بيت الضيافة في مقر السفارة. ومرة جديدة، صدمت السفيرة المحرومة من نِعَم لبنان. فقد أبلغها مساعدو غابارد أنها غير معنية، ولا أحد يريد شيئاً منها، وأن غابارد تفضّل أن تكون زيارتها بعيدة عن كل أشكال البروتوكول، وهي تريد أن تختار من تقابل وأين وكيف.

الأمنيون في السفارة ضغطوا لأجل وضع شروط، من اسم الجهة الأمنية الرسمية اللبنانية التي ستواكب النائبة الأميركية أثناء وجودها في لبنان، مع شرح توضيحي للمناطق التي لا يمكنها زيارتها أبداً (المنطقة الحمراء) أو تلك المفضّل زيارتها نهاراً فقط (المنطقة الصفراء) وتلك المفتوحة ليلاً ونهاراً (المنطقة الخضراء). ثم أودَع المسوؤل الأمني في السفارة مساعدي غابارد أرقام هواتف للاتصال عند الضرورة، قائلاً بلغة الواثق: لدينا وحدات منتشرة في كل لبنان جاهزة للتدخل متى تطلب الأمر.
في الرابع عشر من كانون الثاني غادرت غابارد العاصمة الاميركية متوجهة الى مطار بيروت. وصلت غابارد برفقة زوجها المخرج السينمائي، الرجل الثري من أصول هندية ابراهام وليامز، والوفد المرافق، يوم الاحد. كان مساعدون لها في انتظارها، برفقة قوة من جهاز أمن السفارات في قوى الامن الداخلي، كانت قد توافرت بعد اتصال مع وزير الداخلية نهاد المشنوق. ومن المطار توجه الموكب مباشرة صوب منطقة اليرزة، للحصول على تأشيرة دخول الى سوريا من السفارة السورية هناك. وكان السفير السوري في لبنان علي عبد الكريم الذي استضافهم ريثما تنجز أوراق التأشيرات.

ما حصل هو أن موكب الضيفة الاميركية اختار طريقاً قصيرة للوصول الى منطقة اليرزة. وهذا يعني أنها عبرت منطقة الضاحية الجنوبية، المصنّفة ضمن المنطقة الحمراء.

وأثناء مرورها هناك، سألت: أين نحن؟

الجواب: نحن في منطقة حزب الله.
سألت: لكن أين هي القواعد العسكرية والمسلحون؟
الجواب: لا وجود لهذه الأشياء أصلاً.
سألت: هل أنتم متأكدون من أننا نمرّ في منطقة يسيطر عليها حزب الله بصورة كاملة؟

الجواب: نعم! وخلال دقائق نكون في منطقة تخضع تماماً لسيطرة الجيش اللبناني، وهناك يقع مكتب السفير السوري ومنزله.

هناك، كانت قوة من فرقة «الفهود» التابعة لقوى الامن الداخلي قد وصلت. تبيّن أن المسؤولين الأمنيين في السفارة الاميركية غير راضين عن الاستعانة بجهاز أمن السفارات. فمعلوماتهم تفيد بأنه يقع تحت تأثير حزب الله، وأنهم يفضّلون «الفهود». قَبِل مساعدو غابارد بالأمر، لكن عند وصولها الى غرفتها في أحد فنادق العاصمة، اتصلت السفيرة الاميركية طالبة مقابلتها، لكن غاربارد اعتذرت، مكررة القول: لا أريد أي شيء من السفارة.

الثامنة من صباح الاثنين ينطلق الموكب من الفندق مباشرة باتجاه الحدود السورية. وعند نقطة المصنع، يتوجه الموكب صوب نقطة يوجد فيها فريق أمني يسهّل الوصول الى صالة كبار الزوار، حيث كان أفراد من تشريفات القصر الجمهوري، برئاسة موفد رئاسي سوري، في الانتظار مع سيارات الموكب. وبينما بقي الأمن اللبناني عند الحدود، توجهت غابارد والوفد مباشرة الى لقاء الرئيس بشار الأسد.
استقبلها الأسد بابتسامته المعهودة. صافح أعضاء الوفد، وسألها عن الرحلة، ثم دخلت هي مباشرة في الحديث:

«أنا هنا في زيارة تقصّي حقائق. أريد أن أزور أكثر من منطقة في سوريا إن استطعت، وأن أجتمع بأشخاص على الارض. وأريد مساعدتي في تقديم معطيات موثقة ومؤكدة حول من يدعم المنظمات الإرهابية، وخصوصاً داعش والقاعدة. أنا هنا بموافقة من الكونغرس، وكنت أنوي الحضور قبل أشهر، لكن التأجيل حصل بطلب من الرئيس ترامب نفسه».

ثم عرضت غابارد للأسد تصوّرها للموقف في سوريا والمنطقة. وقالت له: «أنا التقيت الرئيس ترامب قبل مجيئي الى هنا. وأنا أحمل لك رسالة منه. لقد طلب مني أن أنقل لك تصوّره وأفكاره بشأن المنطقة، وطلب أمراً آخر بصورة مباشرة».

واصل الاسد الاستماع، وأفاضت غابارد في عرض وجهة نظرها وما سمعته من الرئيس الاميركي المنتخب. وكررت أمامه ملاحظات الادارة الاميركية على سياسات حلفائها في سوريا، من السعودية الى تركيا الى بقية دول الخليج. وقالت له إن الاولوية المطلقة عند ترامب هي محاربة داعش. وهو سيأخذ بعين الاعتبار في مقاربته ملف ايران. إنها دولة جدية جداً في محاربة داعش. الرئيس ترامب يريد تغييراً جذرياً في سياسة أميركا حيال سوريا والمنطقة.

سألها الاسد: هل هذا هو انطباعك بعد الاجتماع مع ترامب؟
ردّت غابارد: لا، هذه هي أفكاره، وهو طلب مني أن أنقلها إليك. نحن باختصار، نريد التعاون معك في محاربة داعش. ترامب معجب بذكاء روسيا في إدارة الملف السوري، وهو يريد بناء تفاهم مع الروس في سوريا.
ثم فجأة سألت غابارد الأسد: إذا اتصل بك الرئيس ترامب، هل تردّ على المكالمة؟
ابتسم الأسد وسألها: هذا سؤال افتراضي، أم هو اقتراح؟
قالت له: ليس افتراضياً.
الأسد: هذا اقتراح منك؟

ردّت: لا، هذا سؤال لك من الرئيس ترامب، وهو طلب مني أن أنقله إليك، وسأعيد طرح السؤال: إذا اتصل بك هل ستردّ على المكالمة؟

فوجئت غابارد بردّ سريع من الأسد: بالطبع، وسوف أعطيك رقم هاتف يمكن الوصول إليّ عبره سريعاً.
في هذه النقطة،

بدت غابارد متفاجئة بعض الشيء، وكأنها كانت تحت تأثير تشويش، بأن الأسد لن يجيب مباشرة، وأنه سيطلب وقتاً للتفكير. لاحقاً، تبيّن أن إدارة ترامب كانت تعتقد أن الأسد سيطلب الوقت قبل الإجابة، لأجل التشاور مع حلفائه الروس والايرانيين. الاميركيون فكّروا بصراحة أن الأسد «لن يجرؤ على التواصل معهم من دون إذن موسكو».

قبل نهاية الاجتماع، عادت غابارد وشرحت للأسد حاجتها الى جولة في سوريا من أجل إعداد تقريرها حول ما يجري. وسألت إن كان بمقدورها زيارة حلب، بعدما كان الجيش السوري قد استعاد مع حلفائه السيطرة عليها كاملة.

في غضون نحو ساعتين، سمع الاسد عرض غابارد، ثم قدم وجهة نظره ومعطيات حول ما يجري ودور الولايات المتحدة الاميركية المباشر أو غير المباشر في دعم المجموعات الإرهابية. بعد ذلك، انتقلت غابارد الى مكتب آخر، حيث اجتمعت لساعتين أيضاً مع زوجة الرئيس السوري أسماء الأسد، ودار الحديث حول الجوانب الاجتماعية والآثار السلبية للحرب القائمة على الناس في سوريا. بعدها انتقلت للقاء مفتي سوريا بدر الدين حسون، وزيارة الجامع الكبير في دمشق، ثم التقت البطريرك أغناطيوس افرام، وبعده حصل اجتماع مع رجال أعمال وأكاديميين عرضوا لآثار الحرب على سوريا.

بات الوفد ليلته في مقر رسمي للضيافة، وفي ذلك المساء، لبّت غابارد دعوة مستشارة الاسد الدكتورة بثينة شعبان الى العشاء، بحضور مندوب سوريا في الامم المتحدة بشار الجعفري، ثم جرت ترتيبات لاجتماع مع وزير الخارجية وليد المعلم.

صباح اليوم التالي، واكب فريق رسمي سياسي وأمني من القصر الجمهوري الضيفة الاميركية، وغادر الجميع على متن طائرة رئاسية الى حلب. وهناك، كان فريق آخر في الانتظار، وقامت بجولة استمرت لساعات طويلة، التقت خلالها المحافظ وأعضاءً في البرلمان ورجال دين
وناشطين ومواطنين، وتفقدت مخيّماً للنازحين.

قبل مغاردتها حلب، تلقّى مساعدوها اتصالاً يفيد بأن الرئيس الأسد قرر استضافتها الأربعاء، طوال اليوم، وأنه أجرى الترتيبات لعقد لقاءات مفصّلة، يتخللها غداء عملأ وأنه سيزوّدها بوثائق دامغة تؤكد التورط المباشر لأمنيين أميركيين، بطلب من إدارة الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما، في دعم الإرهابيين في سوريا. وهذا ما حصل، فكان قرار تأجيل مغادرتها دمشق من الأربعاء إلى الخميس. وخلال نهار الاربعاء، التقت غابارد الأسد مرتين بحضور مسؤولين في الدولة السورية من الذين أحضروا معهم الوثائق والملفات. وعرض عليها ما مثّل بالنسبة إليها الصدمة وليس المفاجأة فقط. وأعطيت من الأدلة ما يتيح لها التثبّت من صحتها عند عودتها الى الولايات المتحدة الاميركية.

عادت غابارد الخميس الى بيروت، حيث كان من المفترض أن يكون جدول أعمالها مليئاً بمواعيد مقررة مسبقاً، وفق لائحة لم تشمل لأول مرة الشخصيات التي تلزم السفارة الاميركية كل زائر أميركي بمقابلتهم. وجاءت المقترحات تلبية لرغبة غابارد. وضمّ الجدول لقاء الرؤساء الثلاثة وقائد الجيش والمدير العام للأمن العام والرئيس السابق إميل لحود والبطريرك الماروني بشارة الراعي، مع التشديد على أن لا يحضر اللقاءات أيّ موظف من السفارة الاميركية في بيروت. وهي كانت قد حددت موعداً لمقابلة السفيرة ريشارد في لقاء عاجل وعابر.

الذي حصل، والذي شكل مفاجأة، كان رفض مكتب رئيس المجلس النيابي ترتيب لقاء مع الرئيس نبيه بري، ليتبيّن لفريق غابارد سريعاً أن السفارة الاميركية تدخلت، وهي أبلغت مكتب رئيس المجلس، وأيضاً المعنيين في القصرين الجمهوري والحكومي، وحتى القيادات الأمنية، أن الزيارة غير منسّقة مع وزارة الخارجية.

علمت غابارد بالأمر، وطلبت من مساعديها إبلاغ السفيرة أن ما تقوم به هو عمل غير قانوني، وسوف يتم إبلاغ البيت الأبيض به، وسوف تتم محاسبة السفيرة على عمل يناقض مصلحة الولايات المتحدة الاميركية.

قبل مغادرتها بيروت، عقدت غابارد اجتماعاً لم يكن مقرراً مع وزير الخارجية العراقي إبراهيم الجعفري الذي صودف وجوده في بيروت، ثم سافرت في وقت لاحق عائدة الى الولايات المتحدة، ليكون في انتظارها حشد من خصومها الذين شنّوا عليها حملة إعلامية استمرت لعدة أسابيع. كانت هي تنتظر موعداً للاجتماع بالرئيس ترامب لإطلاعه على نتائج الزيارة، بينما باشرت العمل على إعداد تقريرها الخاص عن سوريا… ولهذه المرحلة حكايتها الطويلة أيضاً!

من هي؟

تولسي غابارد (Tulsi Gabarad) مواليد 12 نيسان 1981. ملامحها السمراء تعود الى والدتها التي تعود أصولها الى السكان الأصليين، وقبيلة أمها من الهنود، كانت قد أبيدت في حرب عام 1800. تربّت في عائلة مرتاحة مادياً. توقفت غابارد عن متابعة تحصيلها العلمي بعدما نالت شهادة في الادارة العامة من إحدى جامعات هاواي، وانخرطت في العمل السياسي العام. وأول ما قامت به المشاركة ضمن فرق طبية تابعة للجيش الاميركي خدمت في العراق عام 2004. غابارد ناشطة في هاواي. انتسبت الى الحزب الديموقراطي، وانتخبت لتكون أول عضو كونغرس من الاصول الهندية. معروفة في الاوساط الشبابية، والإعلام يقدمها كمناضلة جريئة. معارضة معروفة للتغيير بواسطة الحرب، كما يحصل في ليبيا والعراق وسوريا. وهي تقود النقاش الساخن حول دعم غير مباشر لداعش وفروع القاعدة

DAPL Protesters Claim Victory as Pipeline Forced to Change Route


The US Army Corps of Engineers will not grant permission for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross Lake Oahe, the hotspot of massive protests of water protectors, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said in a statement, adding that alternative routes are now being studied.

“The Department of the Army will not approve an easement that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota,” said a statement on the US Army website, citing the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy.

Continued here

Native Woman Shot in Face with Tear Gas Canister Gives Interview

Posted on December 3, 2016

Vanessa Dundon, also known as ‘Sioux Z’, was shot in the face with a tear gas canister just before Thanksgiving. Doctors are now saying she will likely not regain vision in her right eye. The incident took place at the Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, and Dundon is one of a number of people who are now part of a class action lawsuit charging officials in Morton County, North Dakota, and the city of Mandan, with excessive force.

%d bloggers like this: