A Convenient Killing of US Troops in Syria

A Convenient Killing of US Troops in Syria


A Convenient Killing of US Troops in Syria

With unseemly haste, US news media leapt on the killing of four American military personnel in Syria as a way to undermine President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw troops from that country.

The deadly attack in the northern city of Manbij, on the west bank of the Euphrates River, was reported to have been carried out by a suicide bomber. The Islamic State (ISIS) terror group reportedly claimed responsibility, but the group routinely makes such claims which often turn out to be false.

The American military personnel were said to be on a routine patrol of Manbij where US forces have been backing Kurdish militants in a purported campaign against ISIS and other terror groups.

An explosion at a restaurant resulted in two US troops and two Pentagon civilian officials being killed, along with more than a dozen other victims. Three other US military persons were among those injured.

US media highlighted the bombing as the biggest single death toll of American forces in Syria since they began operations in the country nearly four years ago.

The US and Kurdish militia have been in control of Manbij for over two years. It is one of the main sites from where American troops are to withdraw under Trump’s exit plan, which he announced on December 19.

Following the bombing, the New York Times headlined: “ISIS Attack in Syria Kills 4 Americans, Raising Worries about Troop Withdrawal”. The report goes on, “the news prompted calls from Republicans and Democrats for President Trump to reconsider his plans to withdraw troops from the country.”

A more pointed headline in The Washington Post was: “Killing of 4 Americans in Syria Throws Spotlight on Trump’s Policy”.

The Post editorialized, “the bombing showed that [ISIS] is likely to be a force to be reckoned with in Syria for the foreseeable future.” It quoted politicians in Washington claiming the “bombing deaths… were a direct result of a foolish and abrupt departure announcement [by Trump], and made the case for staying.”

Democrat Senator Jack Reed, who sits on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said: “From the beginning, I thought the president was wrong [in ordering the withdrawal]. It was a strategic mistake for the whole region.”

With macabre smugness, anti-Trump politicians and news media appeared to exploit the death of US troops in Manbij to score points against Trump.

The president’s claims made just before Christmas of having defeated ISIS were widely replayed following the Manbij attack this week by way of ridiculing Trump’s order to pullout US troops from Syria.

Nevertheless, despite the deaths, Trump and his Vice President Mike Pence stated they were still committed to bring the 2,000 or so US troops home. Some military figures also went on US media to defend Trump’s pullout plan in spite of the terror attack in Manbij.

There clearly is a serious division in Washington over Trump’s policy on Syria. For Democrats and supportive media outlets, anything Trump does is to be opposed. But there are also elements within the military and intelligence nexus which are implacably against, what they see as, his “capitulation to Russia and Iran” in Syria. That was partly why his Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned days after Trump made his announced withdrawal at the end of last month.

Having invested years and money in regime-change machinations in Syria, there is bound to be US military and intelligence cabals which are resistant to Trump’s move to pack up. Not that Trump’s move portends a peace dividend for the region. It is more a “tactical change” for how US imperialism operates in the Middle East, as his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in Cairo last week.

That is why Trump’s order to take troops out of Syria may not be a clear-cut withdrawal. His National Security adviser John Bolton on a tour of the Middle East last week has already tried to undermine Trump by attaching all sorts of vague conditions to the troop pullout. Bolton and Pompeo have talked about the need to ensure the total defeat of ISIS and of the countering of Iranian presence in Syria.

This brings up the question of who may have carried out the bombing in Manbij? Was it really a suicide bomber? Was it really ISIS? Several observers have pointed out that ISIS have not had any presence in Manbij for the past two years since the Americans and Kurds took control of the city.

As always, the key question arises: who stands to benefit from the killing of the American troops? The scale of the attack suggests it was carried out with a sharp political message intended for Trump.

One potential beneficiary are the Kurdish militants who are being abandoned by the putative US withdrawal. Without their American sponsor on the ground, the Kurds are in danger of Turkish forces launching cross-border operations to wipe them out, as Ankara has vowed to do. A Machiavellian Kurdish calculation could be to “disprove” Trump about “ISIS being defeated”, and that US forces are needed to prevent any resurgence of the terror group in Manbij and northeast Syria.

Another sinister player is the CIA or some other element of US military intelligence. It is certainly not beyond the realm of plausibility that the CIA could facilitate such an atrocity against American personnel in order to discredit Trump’s withdrawal plan.

Certainly, the way the anti-Trump media in the US reacted with such alacrity and concerted talking points suggests there was something a bit too convenient about the massacre.

It would in fact be naive to not suspect that the CIA could have pulled off such a false flag in Manbij. As in 1950s Vietnam, as told by Graham Greene in ‘The Quiet American’, the CIA have been doing such dirty tricks with bombing atrocities and assassinations for decades in order to precipitate wars in foreign countries that the agency calculates are in America’s geopolitical interests.


The War Against America’s Only Anti-War Candidate-Tulsi Gabbard

The War Against America’s Only Anti-War Candidate


Born in American Samoa, Representative (Major) Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a Democrat and, far more than Trump, someone who stands against hypocrisy and fakery of every kind, is now running for President of the United States. Unlike Trump or Clinton or Obama or Romney or so many, Tulsi is military, a decorated combat veteran.

Unlike all of them, she is openly against war as a basis for American “diplomacy.”

Gabbard continues to serve as a Major in the Army National Guard after two combat tours in Iraq, one in 2004 as enlisted and a second as a platoon commander in 2009.

Gabbard is known, in particular, for a bill she introduced to Congress, H.R. 608 – Stop Arming Terrorists Act. The Israeli/GOP controlled House of Representatives shelved the bill and America’s love affair with ISIS and al Qaeda went on as it does today, while a deeply censored American press has begun a smear campaign against Gabbard. From Congress.gov:

“Stop Arming Terrorists Act

Sponsor: Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi (D-HI-2) (Introduced 01/233/2017)

This bill prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

“Covered assistance” is defined as:

  • defense articles, defense services, training or logistical support, or any other military assistance provided by grant, loan, credit, transfer, or cash sales;
  • intelligence sharing; or
  • cash assistance. “

All discussion or reporting of this bill and how it was shelved and why, is censored in the US. Why would the Republican Party want to kill a bill prohibiting the US from aiding terrorist groups it claims to be at war with is telling. What is simple here is this, this is a confession that the United States isn’t simply arming and supporting ISIS and al Qaeda but has been all along.

Did America found al Qaeda? Has it always been American controlled, including before, during and most certainly after 9/11? A “yes” answer to all of the above is supportable as no evidence to the contrary has ever been substantiated and, of course, no salient questions have ever been asked.

Not asking questions and staging fake investigations is what Republicans in congress, every single one financed by gambling boss and Israeli “kingpin” Sheldon Adelson, does best. In fact, it is all they do.

As an analog, perhaps John Kerry comes to mind, a democratic candidate in 2004 who was crushed by rampant “Russian free” election rigging involving vote counts, poll interference, laundered voter registration lists, the world was turned on end to keep anti-war Kerry out of the oval office.

Tulsi and John have something else in common, both have met with Syrian President Assad. Insiders know the Kerry family and the Assads are good friends. When Assad was accused by the now discredited White Helmets of gassing his own people, then Secretary of State Kerry was quick to tell President Obama that the accusation wasn’t just false but absurd.

Tulsi Gabbard, who met with President Trump, passing on what she learned after meeting with President Assad, wasn’t taken seriously. Trump, now clearly in the pocket of Kosher Nostra gangsters, has not just repeatedly attacked Syria openly but Trump’s military has staged “accidents” that have killed thousands of Syrian civilians as well.

Even today, with Israel’s attacks on Syria commonplace, military sources tell us that these attacks are, in fact, US backed and part of that very strange narrative where “Russian controlled” Donald Trump is continually aiding Israel against Russia.

In fact, Trump also has worked hard, but very unsuccessfully, to turn Turkey against Russia and has pushed for Ukrainian attacks on Russia as well including staging naval confrontations in the Black Sea, and, mind you, this is a “Russian controlled” president. Ah, but we digress, the real subject is Tulsi Gabbard and what her candidacy means.

To get real background, we head back to the heady days of the late 1960s. We had a breakthrough presidential race in 1968 with madman Richard Nixon, one of histories’ most hated figures long before Watergate, entering a presidential race where Vice President Hubert Humphrey and former Attorney General and now US Senator, Robert Kennedy vied for the presidency.

Breaking up what had previously been a Democratic Party stranglehold on the Southern States was a “darkhorse” candidate, Alabama governor George Wallace, an enigmatic figure, reputed racists but more a “state’s rights” or libertarian than anything else.

Kennedy, above all else, ran on an anti-war platform and was, thusly, murdered in one of the poorest staged CIA/Deep State murders in history, blamed on patsy Sirhan Sirhan.

For Gabbard it hasn’t gotten down to killing, not yet. The attacks began within minutes of her announcing candidacy, accusing her of working for Russia and Syria, of treason, of “collusion and, above all, accusing her of betraying Israel, which if one reads between the lines, really means failing to buckle under to the Kosher Nostra and the Deep State.

What isn’t mentioned about Gabbard is that she is a decorated combat veteran, a US Army Combat Medic and military police platoon leader, who served in Iraq. From International Policy Digest:

“In 2004, Tulsi enlisted in the Hawaii National Guard to serve her state and her country. The next year her unit was deployed to Iraq. Her attendance was not obligatory, but nevertheless, she left her job as a State Representative to go with her unit, making her the first state official to leave their post to serve overseas. During her first 12-month tour in Iraq, she was a part of the 29th Support Battalion Medical Company and earned the Meritorious Service Medal for her performance.

Upon returning to the States in 2006, Tulsi began working as an aide for U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka. She advised Sen. Akaka on issues such as energy independence, homeland security, the environment, and veteran’s issues. During this time, she also attended the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy where she became the first woman in the school’s 50-year history to graduate with the highest distinguished honor in her class. In 2009, Tulsi graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a B.S. in Business Administration. Now a college graduate and an officer in the Hawaii Army National Guard, Tulsi volunteered for a 2nd deployment in Iraq.

During this 12-month deployment, Tulsi served as a Military Police Platoon Leader. In addition to conducting numerous security missions with her platoon, she served as a Primary Trainer for the Kuwait National Guard. She was the first woman to ever set foot inside of a Kuwait military facility and was also the first woman to ever be awarded and honored for her exceptional work in their training and readiness program. She has since been promoted to the rank of Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard and is still a member of the reserve forces.”

The smear campaign is now in full swing with charges flying continually, filling the right wing/Israeli controlled press too often purposefully misidentified as “liberal.” Again, from International Policy Digest:

“After proposing the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R. 608), Tulsi took an unexpected trip to war-torn Syria where she met with citizens from around the country to get firsthand accounts on what was happening, and her findings directly conflict with what the western media is portraying. She shared her findings on how the “moderate rebels,” such as the White Helmets Group that the U.S. funds and praises, are actually radical terrorists affiliated with or directly linked to Al Nusra, an extension of Al Qaeda. Tulsi met with demonized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to talk about achieving peace and stability in Syria once again. She showed that she is not afraid to take risks and to expose the truth, something very few members of Congress have ever had the courage to do. Her experience in Syria motivated her to rightfully question the Idlib gas attacks, which were used to justify Trump’s illegal missile strikes. Through her opposition to the war in Syria and other interventionist wars, Tulsi has solidified herself as one of the best foreign policy experts in the country.”

The author is also a decorated combat veteran, this time a Marine who served in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam War. After returning to the US, I joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Vets for Peace. I participated in anti-war demonstrations and spoke to public groups in opposition to America’s policies in Vietnam.

In fact, I don’t think I ever met a “pro-war” combat veteran of Vietnam, not until decades later and the majority of those turned out to be lying about their military service. Most “flag waving” Vietnam veterans had, in fact, never served in the military at all, a national disgrace.

Anecdotally, in 2004, I attended the “Run for the Wall,” a motorcycle rally for Vietnam veterans initially established for those who opposed the war. The group I rode with included over 100 “vets.” However, when I polled the group during an event in Chillicothe, Ohio, only two had actually served in Vietnam. I was one, the other was Army Medic Henry Sullivan, who was there with me. The rest, all “fakes.”

I mention this because the truth, a truth hidden, a truth censored, has borne fruit, a nation of fakes, of hypocrites, of “twitter warriors” and trolls, of empty lies, of smears, a nation that lies and bullies and one that allows its heroes to be defamed, insulted and smeared on behalf of the interests of international gangsters.

The Tulsi Gabbard candidacy will prove out these dark warnings all too well.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of  Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”


Pakistan’s Army is a National Umbrella Under Stormy Skies

By Adam Garrie


In twenty years time when even the last remnants of terrorism are but a distant memory for Pakistanis, when Gwadar rises to be a shining city of modernity and one of the focal points of both trade and tourism in Asia, when CPEC is a multi-cylinder engine driving prosperity from Lahore to Karachi and when economic growth becomes consistent and sustainable throughout the country – people throughout Pakistan will know that this much is true: without the protection of one of the most professional, dedicated and patriotic Armies in the world, there would be no such place as Pakistan.

While a Pakistan that sounds like a giant Singapore with Islamic characteristics might seem like a tall order in terms of forecasting such positive changes over the country’s next 20 years of development, one must remember that even ten or fifteen years ago, few could imagine that the Pakistan of 2019 would be a place where peace is the rule and instability is the exception, where orderly political transitions can be conducted with confidence and without dynastic parties ruling the day, a place where Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) is province of renewal rather than a ground zero of horror and a place where an unpredictable US President criticises Pakistan one month and then effectively begs its Prime Minister for assistance in Afghanistan the next.

The Pakistan of today is very different than the Pakistan of 2009 and it is the Army that has largely made the difference as in 2009, political institutions of the country were weakened by internal chaos whilst even Swiss style political efficiency would have required an armed forces and intelligence service of supreme commitment to a fight against a wave of terrorism in a battle that to many, seemed to be unwinnable to at the time.

The history of armies leading countries out of dark periods and into those of renewal is well established throughout modern history. At a time when modern Turkey was threatened with western directed colonialism on all sides after 1918, it was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Turkish National Movement that reclaimed Turkey’s dignity and helped to form the modern Republic of Turkey. As it was Atatürk’s army that helped to create the modern state, so too did the army play a major role in shaping Turkey’s politics until very recent years when it became clear that the civilian government had sufficiently modernised itself and was up to the important task of overseeing stable governance. Yet few in the west nor in Asia have insulted the historic role of Turkey’s army in the way that they have done in respect of Pakistan.

In many ways, Pakistan’s 21st century war against a multitude of terror groups has been even more harrowing than the Turkish War of Independence. While for decades India had sponsored terror groups aiming to sever Pakistan’s national unity whilst no Afghan government has ever recognised Pakistan’s internationally acknowledged border along the Durand Line, it was the unleashing of George W. Bush’s “war on terror” that for Pakistan became a war for survival as extremist groups supported by Pakistan’s regional enemies swarmed across the border causing havoc throughout the country, but particularly in the north-west.

While America’s misguided war on Afghanistan after 2001 was supposed to be a war to avenge the 9/11 atrocity, this war unleashed onto Pakistan many micro-9/11s in which civilians were slaughtered by terror groups that were perversely aided by the fledgling Kabul forces that the US had installed. While US drone strikes in Pakistan killed civilians almost as frequently as they targeted actual terrorists, it was Pakistan’s Army that succeeded in turning groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan from a force that threatened to plant the flag of terror in Islamabad into a rudderless, leaderless rump whose power has more or less been totally neutralised.

While today, it is rightly acknowledged that political reforms in KP continue to fight the roots of extremism, while a border fence along the Durand Line has helped to stem the tide of terror from the Afghan failed state, what must never be forgotten is the it was the martyrdom of thousands of Pakistani soldiers upon whose sacrifice the foundation of Naya Pakistan was at long last built.

The choice for Pakistan during much of the 21st century was not between “the Establishment and democracy” as many cynics would have one believe. The choice was one between national life and national death and without the courage of the Army, the terrorist death merchants would have made the choice for Pakistan and the results would have been truly devastating on a grand scale.

2018 saw the second ever peaceful transition of power in Pakistan and one were the old dynastic parties of the past were democratically dislodged from power in favour of a reformist force – PTI. Saying that this peaceful transition of power was orchestrated by “the Establishment” is actually an insult both to the people of Pakistan and to the Army. This is the case because it was on the back of the supreme sacrifices of the Army in the fight against terrorism and extremism that the country was able to hold its second ever peaceful transition of power and it was the people who were able to speak freely because of the safety that pervades in the country, now that the most wicked terror groups are shadows of their former selves.

The American media frequently criticises Pakistan’s Army and yet there is an expression among ordinary Americans that states “if you love your freedom, thank a soldier”. As a country that has faced vastly less terrorism and foreign invasion than Pakistan and as a country bordered by two allies rather than a nation with two clear enemies, one to the east and one to the north-west, the American phrase stating that a soldier should be thanked for national freedom frankly applies far more to Pakistan than to almost any other country in the 21st century. It is therefore nothing less than shameful that some American journalists who live in a country where the soldier is elevated to a position of respect in the media and in much of society, should somehow criticise Pakistan for the role its Army has played in preventing chaos from turning a great Asian nation into a failed state like Afghanistan or like Libya.

Looking to the future, if Naya Pakistan means anything – it means harmony. Harmony between wealth and development, between Pakistan and its all weather friends whether it be China or Turkey or others, between provinces of the country and within provinces of the country and between the Army and the government. In a harmonious state, the government and Army are not in a competition for power but work together to continue securing the nation from its enemies who have been beaten back but who have by no means gone away.

Pakistan’s democracy has become healthy because Pakistan’s streets, mountains, ports and villages have become safe. There can be no freedom without prosperity and there can be no prosperity without peace. This should be the epilogue of any story about the role of Pakistan’s Army in the last decades. It is a universal truth made all the more clear by specific stories of the ultimate sacrifice – one that has risen the flag of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s enlightenment where the flags of extremist barbarism once flew.

Rouhani Announces Iran-Made Rockets to Carry Satellites into Orbit

Local Editor

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country will soon send two new satellites into orbit using Iran-made rockets.

In further details, Rouhani hinted on Thursday the launch will happen “soon, in the coming weeks.”

Iran typically displays achievements in its space program in February, during the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The Islamic Republic has sent several short-lived satellites into orbit over the past decade, and in 2013 launched a monkey into space.

Meanwhile, the US and its allies claim that they are worried the same satellite-launching technology could be used to develop long-range missiles.

The US claims Iran’s plans for sending satellites into orbit demonstrate its defiance of a UN Security Council resolution calling on Iran to undertake no activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Iran, for its part, insists the launches do not violate the resolution.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related Videos

Related Articles

طبيعة وأهداف الانسحاب الأميركي التكتيكية والاستراتيجية من سورية


يناير 9, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

صحيح أنّ الإطار العام لقرار سحب الولايات المتحدة لقواتها من سورية واضح ولا جدال فيه. ونعني بالتحديد الهزيمة الاستراتيجية للمشروع الصهيوأميركي الذي كان يرمي الى تفتيت المنطقة وتحويلها محميات إسرائيلية – تركية خدمة للأهداف والأطماع الأميركية في إعادة فرض سيطرتها الأحادية الجانب على العالم. تلك السيطرة التي بدأت تتآكل بعد بدء مرحلة الصعود المضطرد للقوة العسكرية الروسية والصينية والإيرانية، الى جانب القوة الاقتصادية الصينية التي تهدّد سيطرة الولايات المتحدة بشكل مباشر وخطير للغاية.

أما الإطار الأكثر تحديداً، لاتخاذ قرار سحب القوات، فيتمثل في محاولة الالتفاف على انتصارات محور المقاومة، ومعه روسيا، ذات الطبيعة الاستراتيجية الهامة الانتصارات ،

لذلك فإننا لا نرى أنّ قرار الانسحاب الأميركي من سورية يعبّر عن نية الولايات المتحدة في الكفّ عن العبث بشؤون الدول العربية والاسلامية، وكذلك الأمر العبث بشؤون روسيا والصين، وانما هو عبارة عن تكتيك جديد تتبعه الإدارة الأميركية لتحقيق الأهداف التي فشلت في تحقيقها، منذ عام 2005 وحتى الآن، في المنطقة والعالم. إذ انّ الولايات المتحدة قد فشلت في:

1 ـ ضرب الجيش السوري وتدميره في لبنان وسورية، على قاعدة القرار 1559 والذي كان معدّاً بشكل ترفضه الحكومة السورية ثم تقوم القوى صاحبة القرار باستصدار قرار من مجلس الأمن لضرب الجيش العربي السوري، ايّ إعادة تطبيق سيناريو الكويت مع الجيش العراقي. ولكن حكمة وحنكة القيادة السورية قد أفشلت هذا المخطط.

2 ـ كما فشلت في ضرب حزب الله والمقاومة الإسلامية وتدمير قدراتهما العسكرية في عدوان 2006 على لبنان مما دفعها الى تكتيك تفجير لبنان من الداخل، عبر عملائها المعروفين في لبنان، كما حصل في أيار عام 2008.

3 ـ فشلت في ضرب المقاومة في قطاع غزة، عبر سلسلة حروب بدأت أواخر عام 2008/ بداية 2009 واستمرت حتى قبل أسابيع قليلة.

4 ـ فشل المشروع الأميركي الصهيوني في تدمير سورية، ضرباً لقلب محور المقاومة، والسيطرة على اليمن، عبر العميل السعودي، ونجاح قوى المقاومة، بالتعاون مع الجيش والحشد الشعبي، في العراق من تحرير معظم أنحاء العراق من القوات البديلة للقوات الأميركية هناك والتي هي قوات داعش. تلك العصابات التي ليست سوى جحافل من المرتزقة الذين، كانت ولا زالت، تديرهم القيادة المركزية في الجيش الأميركي ومقرها الدوحة / قطر، بتمويل سعودي إماراتي قطري.

من هنا، ومن واقع الاقتناع الأميركي بفشل كلّ تلك المخططات، لجأت الإدارة الأميركية، من خلال البنتاغون طبعاً، إلى تغيير في تكتيكاتها العسكرية في المنطقة دون تغيير في الأهداف الاستراتيجية المتمثلة في ما يلي :

تعزيز السيطرة الأميركية على العراق، بعد الفشل في سورية، وذلك دون استخدام او استقدام قوات أميركية كبيرة الى العراق، وإنما عبر إعادة انتشار للقوات الأميركية في كل من سورية والعراق، بحيث يُعاد تأهيل فلول داعش، في كلّ من العراق وسورية، ودعمها بعناصر من التشكيلات التي تُشرف عليها غرفة العمليات الميدانية الأميركية في التنف من قوات العبدو / أسود الشرقية…. الى جانب عصابات قسد من الناحية السورية.

وهذا يتطلب إنشاء نقاط قيادة وسيطرة أميركية في المناطق التي ستكلف داعش بالتحرّك فيها من جديد، مثل مناطق الحدود العراقية السورية، من القائم حتى التنف، ومنطقة غرب وجنوب غرب محافظة الأنبار العراقية، وصولاً الى منطقة النخيب ووادي القذف، وادي حوران، وادي ثميل، وادي أم الوز، ومكر الذئب. وهذه جميعها مناطق تحظر القوات الأميركية على أيّ قطعات عسكرية عراقية الدخول إليها كما تحظر على الطيران العراقي الاقتراب منها.

ولعلّ البعض يذكر محاولات الجيش الأميركي السيطرة على قاعدةH3 في غرب الأنبار قبل أسابيع عدة، تلك المحاولة التي تبعها إرسال قوة أميركية مجوقلة، الى قضاء النخيب قوامها سريتان كاملتان، أيّ حوالي 180 جندياً، وذلك لمنع سيطرة الحشد الشعبي على هذا المحور الاستراتيجي الهام الموصل الى عرعر السعودية جنوباً والرطبة/ الحدود الأردنية، وكذلك الأمر الى عكاشات باتجاه الحدود السورية.

وهذا يعني أنّ مَن يسيطر على هذه المحاور يسيطر على خط الرمادي/ الحدود الأردنية ذي الطبيعة الاستراتيجية التي سنبينها لاحقاً.

يتضح مما تقدّم انّ إعادة الانتشار العسكري الأميركية في سورية سحب القوات وفِي العراق إعادة توزيعها ، في محافظات العراق الشمالية الأكراد والغربية الأنبار تهدف الى ما يلي إعادة الانتشار :

أ خلق شبكة مراكز قيادة وسيطرة أميركية متكاملة، لإدارة وتشغيل العصابات المسلحة والمناورة بتشكيلاتها، ليس فقط في محافظة الأنبار وإنما لتفعيلها من جديد في محافظتي صلاح الدين وديالى بشكل خاص، وذلك بهدف إيصال الفوضى الى الحدود العراقية الإيرانية، تسهيلاً لنقل الفوضى وعمليات التخريب إلى داخل إيران.

ب تحقيق هدف السيطرة على محافظتي ديالى وصلاح الدين، مع الإشارة الى وجود داعشي فاعل في منطقة حمرين وجبالها ومنطقة جنوب الحويجة، وربط منطقة السيطرة هذه مع مناطق غرب الأنبار المذكورة سابقاً يتيح المجال للأميركيين بقطع التواصل الجغرافي بين سورية وإيران عبر العراق. وهو هدف استراتيجي تعمل الولايات المتحدة الأميركية على تحقيقه للأسباب المعروفة للجميع.

ج كما أنّ الولايات المتحدة، إذا استطاعت تحقيق خطتها هذه، المتمثلة في السيطرة على مناطق استراتيجية في العراق من خلال تشكيلات العصابات المسلحة التي تقوم بتشغيلها، فإنها ستحقق هدفاً استراتيجياً آخر يتمثل في قطع التواصل، أو طرق الإمداد، الاستراتيجي عن طريق البر، من روسيا عبر إيران والعراق الى سورية. علماً انّ طرق الإمداد هذه على درجة كبيرة من الأهمية في حال نشوب صراع عسكري عالمي، إذ إنّ الاسطول الروسي والقوات الجوفضائية الروسية المرابطة في سورية، ستصبح معزولة عن قواعدها الخلفية وبالتالي قد تتعرّض طرق إمدادها، عبر مضيق البوسفور او مضيق جبل طارق للتوقف، مما يحوّلها الى قوات «قيد الإبادة مع وقف التنفيذ». وهذا يعني أنها ستتحوّل قوات محاصرة ليس أمامها سوى الاستسلام او القتال حتى الموت.

د إذن هدف إعادة الانتشار هو:

تحسين المواقع الأميركية في التصدي لإيران او لمواجهة التوسع الإيراني، حسب ما يقول الأميركيون.

التقليل من الخسائر الأميركية، المادية والبشرية، من خلال القتال باستخدام عصابات مسلحة محلية… تذكروا موضوع فتنة الحرب…!

مواصلة استخدام فزاعة داعش لإطالة أمد الفوضى في المنطقة.

ولكن كلّ هذه التكتيكات والخطط الأميركية محكومة بالفشل، اذ انّ حجم الهزيمة التي لحقت بمشروعهم في المنطقة، لا تسمح بترميم قوتهم في الميدان، نقصد سورية والعراق واليمن ولبنان وفلسطين، تماماً كما حصل مع الجيوش الألمانية الهتلرية إثر هزيمتها في معركة ستالينغراد، في شهر شباط سنة 1943، والتي حاولت، عبثاً، استعادة زمام المبادرة الاستراتيجي في الميدان، واستمرت في التراجع حتى سقطت عاصمة الرايخ الثالث، برلين، في أيدي الجيوش السوفياتية بقيادة المارشال شوكوف يوم 8/5/1945. وهذا بالضبط ما سيحصل مع الحلف الصهيوأميركي الرجعي العربي والذي ستواصل قواته عجزها وتراجعها أمام قوات حلف المقاومة الى أن نصل يوم تحرير القدس ودخول جيوش حلف المقاومة اليها منتصرة رافعة راية النصر على أسوارها.

ولعلّ قيام الحكومة العراقية، وبضغط من البرلمان والأحزاب السياسية التي تعتبر نفسها أحزاباً وطنية، بالطلب السريع من القوات الأميركية الانسحاب الكامل من العراق، التعجيل في الوصول الى يوم اختتام المرحلة الأخيرة من الهجوم الاستراتيجي لقوات حلف المقاومة ودخول القدس محرّرين مساجدها وكنائسها. كما انّ موضوع ضرورة طلب الحكومة الأميركية رسمياً انسحاب القوات الأميركية من العراق ما هو إلا فرصة للعراق ليتخلص من بقايا الاحتلال الأميركي وأذنابه المحليين الذين يعرقلون محاولات القوى العراقية الوطنية الحشد الشعبي بمثابة النواة إعادة العراق الى مجده السامي ودوره العربي الإسلامي الطليعي.

وتلك الأيام نداولها بين الناس.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله

Related Videos

Related Articles

Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

January 03, 2019

by David Penner for The Saker Blog

Ask any American liberal aged sixty-five and older what they think about Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler and they will vehemently denounce these men as tyrants, murderers, and despots. Ask them what they think about the Vietnam War and they will say it was a tragedy, not only for the Vietnamese, but for the poor American soldiers who were drafted and used as cannon fodder. Liberals also once defended the civil rights movement and the New Deal while vigorously opposing McCarthyism. That these same people would go on to support deunionization, resegregation, and Russophobia while enthusiastically backing barbarous wars and interventions in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine constitutes not only a betrayal of leftist principles, but is indicative of a rejection of reason and the reality-based world.

Like the proverbial general always fighting the last war, liberals remain trapped in the past, unable to adapt to rapidly unfolding kinetic developments. The problem is that not only is this general fighting the last war, this is a general that can no longer distinguish between right and left and has lost any semblance of a moral compass.

There’s a Hitler on The Danube

One could argue that the new Cold War began with Bill Clinton bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. For Russians that were not yet alarmed by this perfidy, their red lines were irrefutably crossed with the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia, regarded by Russians as a brotherly nation. This constituted an illegal war of aggression, and was carried out without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia initiated an unraveling of international law and marked an erosion in the equilibrium between the great powers.

As Noam Chomsky has noted, Yugoslavia was marked for destruction, because unlike the other formerly communist European countries they did not embrace privatization. The destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a violation of the UN Charter, but was also the first “humanitarian intervention” following the collapse of the USSR that liberals were duped into embracing. In an article on the RT website titled “15 years on: Looking back at NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Yugoslavia,” the author writes, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or ‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.”

While Milošević and the Serbs were marked for demonization due to their lack of enthusiasm for neoliberal “reforms,” Croatian secessionists (many of whom subscribed to a neo-Nazi and neo-Ustasha ideology), Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia, and the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were supported by the West. Brigadier-General Pierre Marie Gallois of the French Army has condemned the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia, and has gone on record stating that the endless stories of Serb atrocities, such as mass rapes and the siege of Sarajevo were fabricated. Gallois also argues that the German elite sought revenge for the fierce Serb resistance during the two world wars, especially with regard to the Serb partisans that held up German divisions that were headed towards Leningrad and Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. While relentlessly demonized, the Serbs were in many ways the greatest victims of the NATO-orchestrated Balkan wars, as hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forcibly expelled from both Croatia and Kosovo while Serbia was turned into a free-fire zone by NATO for over seventy days. Washington took advantage of the conflict to solidify control over its European vassals.

During the aerial campaign, between ten and fifteen tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Serbia resulting in extremely high rates of cancer. The Independent coyly informed its readers that the forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia, which they refer to as an “exodus” – is a great mystery – a “riddle.” The only “riddle” is how liberals can denounce genocide and speak ad nauseam about human rights while supporting neo-Nazi regimes, such as the Poroshenko government in Kiev and the Tudjman government in Croatia, which have perpetrated genocidal war crimes in broad daylight. The forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia was eventually reported by The New York Times, but four years too late. Liberal-backed jihadists in Libya and Syria have likewise carried out one ethnic cleansing after another.

Endless calls by the mainstream press to stop the evil Serbs from establishing a “greater Serbia” were blatant propaganda, as there was no way that the hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo could have “invaded” these territories, as they had already been living there for centuries. Indeed, this very scenario holds true for the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Moreover, as the mass media was busy vilifying the Serbs, behind the scenes American diplomats had no illusions about who they were dealing with, referring to the Croatian nationalists as “our junkyard dogs.”

In an article titled “The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia,” Michael Parenti writes:

Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions. This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles. Needless to say, U.S. leaders did nothing to stop and much to assist these atrocities, while the U.S. media looked the other way.

Kosovo was also prized by the Western elites because of its rich deposits of coal, lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver valued in the billions of dollars. The tragic balkanization of Yugoslavia, where brother was pitted against brother, brought about the destruction of a non-aligned country with a nationalized economy thereby bolstering the power of Western finance capital.  Of the NATO bombings, Parenti posits that, “To destroy publicly-run Yugoslav factories that produced auto parts, appliances, or fertilizer…is to enhance the investment value of western producers. And every television or radio station closed down by NATO troops or blown up by NATO bombs extends the monopolizing dominance of the western media cartels. The aerial destruction of Yugoslavia’s social capital served that purpose.”

Lamentably, all of this was drowned out by the mass media’s vilification of the Serbs. An article in The Guardian titled “Serbs enslaved Muslim women at rape camps” encapsulates perfectly how Western liberals were duped into embracing a war which was waged for no other reason than to fortify the power of US and NATO hegemony. This propaganda is particularly galling in light of the fact that women’s rights have been thrown back into the Stone Age precisely in the very countries which have come under attack by Washington and her proxies, such as Libya, jihadist-occupied Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

“Save Benghazi” and More Humanitarian Psychosis

Repeated calls by the presstitutes to “save Benghazi” sufficed to obtain liberal support for a war of aggression that has left Libya in such a state of anarchy and chaos, that Libyans who have been unable to flee the country are now trapped in a failed state where warring militias vie for power. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Obama’s Libya Debacle,” Alan J. Kuperman writes, “With Moscow’s acquiescence, the United Nations Security Council had approved the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya and other measures to protect civilians. But NATO exceeded that mandate to pursue regime change.”

Under Gaddafi Libyans enjoyed a high standard of living, and health care and education were free. Gaddafi’s desire to set up a gold-backed dinar put him in the crosshairs of the Western elites, as this would have liberated Africans from domination by the World Bank and the IMF through establishing a common gold-backed currency. Alas, this was lost on the human rights crusaders of the holier-than-thou faux left.

Libya, which formerly had the highest standard of living in Africa, has been annihilated as a nation state. Slave markets are a legacy of this great “humanitarian intervention,” as are pogroms carried out against black Africans, formerly given refuge by the Gaddafi regime. An article in The Telegraph, which appeared in March of 2011, titled “Libya crisis: Benghazi fights for its life as Gaddafi attacks,” was one of countless articles in the mainstream press that incited messianic liberals into supporting a war of aggression against a people that had become too independent.

Once a country is marked for destruction by the Western elites no story is too outrageous, as evidenced by Susan Rice’s claim that Gaddafi supplied his troops with Viagra so that they could more effectively carry out mass rapes. This barbaric destruction of a sovereign state was summed up by liberal icon Hillary Clinton, who when asked about the brutal murder of Gaddafi, happily blurted out “We came! We saw! He died!

In what constituted the most genocidal invasion of a country following the end of the Vietnam War, Iraq was marked for annihilation after Saddam Hussein made the decision to sell oil in euros. In a rare moment of candor from a high priest of liberalism, Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half a million children that died due to the Clinton-backed sanctions, replied “We think the price is worth it.” This chilling remark underscores the fact that, contrary to liberal theology, the destruction of Iraq was perpetrated with equal fervor by both parties. Incredibly, even after spending trillions of dollars systematically destroying Iraqi social and political institutions, Washington failed to install a puppet government in Baghdad which has forged alliances with Tehran, Damascus, and Moscow.

Liberal saint Obama, in comparing the reunification of Crimea and Russia with the Iraq War, informs us that the “annexation of Crimea” – which was enthusiastically backed by the overwhelming majority of Crimeans – was worse than the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a million deaths, destroyed a civilization and fueled the rise of ISIS.

As if her abysmal record makes her a Marxist scholar, Albright now warns Americans of the dangers of fascism, her implication of course being that the rise of Trump represents a threat to our democracy. Perhaps the Donald’s desire to pursue detente with Russia, and the fact that he has yet to start any new wars are what liberals are really upset about.

The Obama administration’s support for the Saudi war on Yemen is yet another impressive achievement for the liberal class, and has yielded such an earthly paradise that Yemenis have resorted to eating leaves to survive. For this extravaganza of mass murder the presstitutes didn’t even bother coming up with a fictitious narrative, allowing the salt of the earth to set aside their pom-poms for a while and take a nap.

Syria: Mass Murder in Paradise

Unsurprisingly, the mass media had no trouble duping imaginary leftists into believing that Syrians were being indiscriminately slaughtered by the Syrian Arab Army and the evil Russians. Unbeknownst to The Guardian and The New York Times, the US military presence in Syria is illegal, while Russian and Iranian military personnel are there at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration and its vassals are clearly responsible for the carnage in Syria, as they poured billions of dollars into backing the many jihadist groups. The mass media also hoodwinked liberals into thinking that the US military has been fighting ISIS, when they have used ISIS along with Al-Nusra Front and other illegal armed formations, as proxies with which to wage war on Syrian society. If Washington were battling the jihadists in Syria, why would they simultaneously be antagonists with the Syrian government and the Russians, who together saved Syria from being overrun by these very barbarians? Indeed, such questions have become a form of unmitigated heresy.

Articles such as “The Effects of Suspending American Aid to Moderate Syrian Opposition Groups,” by Hosam al-Jablawi, which appeared on The Atlantic Council’s website, seek to further the fallacy that the militants have been mostly democratic and secular. Washington and her vassals have poured enormous amounts of weaponry into the conflict zone, and Israeli weapons have been discovered in Syrian territories liberated from Daesh. That German machine guns from the Second World War have been discovered in some of these hideouts is symbolic of the true intentions of these murderous and sociopathic gangs.

The New York Post has referred to the jihadists in Syria as “freedom fighters.” While this may not be regarded as a “liberal” publication, an even more inane sentiment was expressed on Democracy Now, where Amy Goodman discussed the fighting in Eastern Ghouta with Rawya Rageh, Alia Malek, and Wendy Pearlman. Throughout the entire discussion of what can only be called an imaginary war, the fact that a large swath of Syria was taken over by jihadists, many of whom were not even Syrians but foreigners, is not even mentioned. In this cloud-cuckoo-land that passes for journalism the militants do not even exist. Assad and Putin are simply killing as many Syrians as possible, and doing so in an orgy of gratuitous savagery.

An article in The Guardian titled “You’re on your own, US tells Syrian rebels, as Assad goes on offensive” is deliberately written with the intention of stirring up liberal outrage over “indifference in the face of genocide,” and seeks to evoke memories of the Holocaust, the appeasement of Hitler, and the defeat of the Republicans by the forces of Franco. Meanwhile, independent media is shunned by liberals, who dismiss efforts at real journalism and political analysis as “conspiracy theory.” Thankfully for the insane, there is no shortage of good reading material.

Moscow has repeatedly maintained that the Syrian Arab Army is no longer in possession of chemical weapons, and there is ample evidence that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flag operations carried out by the jihadists to justify NATO aerial attacks on the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian infrastructure. Clearly, these incidents make for great Hollywood and have been extremely effective in stirring up gullible liberals who proceed to bray, as if on cue, for another regime change.

Tied to the mass media’s obsession with accusing Assad of “gassing his own people” are the White Helmets, who have been funded by the West, and who are clearly allied with the jihadists. The White Helmets played a critical role in duping liberal fundamentalists into thinking that there was a democratic uprising in Syria, and that the West must intervene “to put an end to the suffering.” Time will tell if Washington truly ceases all military operations in this war-ravaged country.

Forgotten Killing Fields: Afghanistan and Ukraine

The invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan was sold as a war to free oppressed women. An article in The Independent by Jane Dalton titled “Afghanistan’s first female military pilot granted asylum in US after fleeing Taliban death threats,” is crude propaganda, yet very effective nevertheless. This is a great way to distract insouciant liberals from what Americans are more likely to do in their dealings with Afghans, which is to murder them, and then urinate over their dead bodies. What the mass media doesn’t like to talk about is how the rise of the Taliban is a direct result of Washington’s support for the mujahideen in their insurgency against the secular Afghan communist government in the 1980s. Washington is furious with the International Criminal Court over considering prosecution of American officials for war crimes in Afghanistan, and has even threatened to arrest ICC judges in retaliation. Unbeknownst to these judges, Americans are God’s chosen people. Consequently, they are incapable of war crimes.

Samantha Power is a particularly pious priest in the Church of Humanitarian Interventionism. Power was a staunch advocate of military intervention in Libya, and used her influence to cover up the crimes of the US-Saudi genocidal assault on Yemen. She defended Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and yet was extremely critical of the “annexation of Crimea.” That the reunification of Crimea and Russia was in fact a legitimate humanitarian intervention is an irony that was undoubtedly lost on her. In a 2016 showdown with Vitaly Churkin at the UN Power accused Russia, Syria, and Iran of slaughtering civilians in Aleppo, when they were liberating the city from jihadists backed by Washington and her vassals. Power also spoke of the liberation of Aleppo as if the jihadists were Jews bravely defending themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Syrian and Russian troops were fascists perpetrating brutal acts of collective punishment. Following this deranged rant, Churkin said, “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country.”

The NATO-backed putsch in Kiev, supported wholeheartedly by the Obama administration, resulted in an unconstitutional seizure of power by the heirs of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as well as a genocidal war waged against the ethnic Russians of the Donbass who have steadfastly refused to recognize the Banderite regime. In pitting neo-Nazis against neo-partisans, the restoration of Ukrainian nationalism has resurrected the demons of the past, as the bodies of slain Novorossiyan fighters are mingled with the bones of their heroic grandfathers.

Despite blathering on about the Nazis for decades, liberals were fully complicit in bringing this odious regime to power, as they were easily hoodwinked into thinking that the coup was a grassroots democratic uprising, and that the armed formations battling the Ukrainian military in the Donbass were divisions from the Russian Armed Forces, when they are overwhelmingly comprised of locals from Donetsk and Lugansk.

Moreover, as the Western elites impose multiculturalism and identity politics at home, they are simultaneously fomenting the rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe. This underscores the moral bankruptcy, duplicity, and schizophrenia of the liberal class and has trapped Europeans in an intellectual paralysis where they are being offered a choice between neo-Nazism or multiculturalism, both of which benefit the oligarchy. The Maidan coup, executed by pogromists, neo-Nazis, and Banderites has legitimized unconstitutional seizures of power and inspired those who would like to carry out a putsch of their own in Germany.

A Hitler on The Moskva River?

As Putin has noted, following the collapse of the USSR Washington and NATO have pursued a policy of unilateralism. These wars have not only been carried out in flagrant violation of the UN Charter that condemns wars of aggression, but have also contributed to the degradation of the rule of law within the West itself. Western stenographers like to complain about terrorism, but terrorists filled the vacuum following the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a large swath of jihadist-occupied Syria – “humanitarian interventions” – where liberal complicity is undeniable and irrefutable.

The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism is rooted in the myth that the invasion of Normandy brought about the defeat of fascism. While this is not to denigrate the contributions made by resistance groups in Western Europe or those who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the fact is that the defeat of fascism was achieved by the Red Army and allied partisans who bore the brunt of the best German troops, together with the courage of the Russian people who suffered the loss of twenty-seven million of their countrymen. This much vaunted invasion was launched on June 6, 1944, and only after it was clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war.

The descent of liberals into a morass of madness and bestiality is intertwined with a gross naivete regarding the true intentions of publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Guardian which are leading their readers around like so many poodles. Sadly, most of these creatures will go to their graves never understanding the treachery of these periodicals that they have given their very souls to. Liberals have also decided that it is better to spend trillions of dollars on illegal wars of aggression while their sons and daughters have inadequate health insurance and wallow in dead-end jobs working for the minimum wage.

In a spectacular display of Russophobia and Apocalypticism, Nikki Haley, who could easily work for either party and not know the difference, recently wrote on her Twitter page that “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.” Washington’s decision to make Putin their favorite new bogeyman undoubtedly helps justify the obscene budget of the military industrial complex. Let’s pray that the bells of humanitarian intervention don’t ring out in strident cacophony over the Kremlin, which would assuredly take us to a place from which there is no dawning, and the evanescing of the sun of mankind forever.
David Penner’s articles on politics and health care have appeared in Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Russia Insider and KevinMD. Also a photographer and native New Yorker, he is the author of three books: Faces of The New Economy, Faces of Manhattan Island, and Manhattan Pairs. He can be reached at 321davidadam@gmail.com.

Trump to Europe: You’re Vassals and I Don’t Care


Trump to Europe: You’re Vassals and I Don’t Care

I don’t care about Europe,” declared US President Donald Trump this week during his White House cabinet’s first meeting of the new year.The American president probably revealed more about the true nature of US-European relations than he intended.

Trump was speaking in the context of American military involvement with Europe, as well as trade and other issues. He was reiterating the tedious mantra that the US is allegedly being “taken advantage of” by European allies by not spending more on their military budgets.

It was the usual rambling, barely articulate fallacy from Trump who portrays the inherent military profligacy of American corporate capitalism not as a destructive vice, but as a supposed virtuous cause of “protection” for allies and the rest of the world. In short, delusional American exceptionalism.

But it was Trump’s bluntly stated contempt for European allies that was notable. In a quip to a question about his reported unpopularity in Europe, the president said he didn’t care what Europeans think. A few seconds later, in a betrayal of his arrant egotistical state of mind, Trump turned around and claimed that he would be popular if he stood in an election in Europe!

Ironically, though, perhaps we should be grateful to Trump for his brash outspokenness. By dissing Europe with such contemptuous disregard, he lays bare the true face of Washington’s relations with the old continent.

Past American presidents have been adept at presenting the transatlantic connection as a putative “strategic partnership” – as most clearly manifested by the US-led NATO military alliance. Trump’s former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who resigned in protest over policies, was of this conventional transatlantic mould. Mattis repeatedly talked up the importance of maintaining strong bonds with allies.

However, decades of transatlantic rhetoric has often served to conceal the real relationship between Washington and Europe. The reality is the Europeans are not partners. They are vassals.

Successive European governments and the European Union have continually permitted their countries to serve as bases for American military forces, including in the past, nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. Those missiles may return to European soil, if the US walks away from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty as it threatens to do under Trump.

The subordinate European governments have also dutifully facilitated American militarism by affording a multilateral pseudo legal cover for Washington’s imperialist wars. For example, European nations sent troops to augment US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thereby giving criminal genocidal ventures a veneer of legitimacy.

Ironically, in his remarks to his cabinet this week Trump scoffed at European nations for sending “only 100 troops” to Afghanistan and Iraq. He also mentioned Syria, illustrating how rampantly arrogant US criminality is.

So, Trump is berating Europeans for not devoting more of their economic resources to match the American pathological addiction to militarism; for not paying more for US military occupation of European countries; and for not sending more troops to join in American overseas criminal aggressions.

Previous American presidents would be a little more circumspect in disguising Washington’s tyrannical relationship with Europe. But Trump is too self-centered and boorishly transactional in his view. The whole self-indulgent pretense of American chivalry and protection is shredded, albeit unwittingly.

Trump told Europe this week he does not care a jot about the continent and supposed US allies. With such contempt, European nations need to wake up to the reality of charting their own independence from Washington, and in particular pursuing a genuine continental partnership with Russia.

Washington’s arrogance is perhaps most starkly expressed by the Trump administration threatening European states with sanctions if they continue building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. Russia is a natural strategic partner for Europe, especially in terms of economical supply of gas and oil fuel.

The issue of energy supply and demand epitomizes so much else about the relation between Europe and Russia, and the US. The latter is something of an imposter and is foisting its selfish interests on others, whether in energy trade or in military affairs. We have also seen this with regard to Trump tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and punishing Europe for upholding that international treaty.

Trump could not have stated the reality of American disregard for European interests any more brazenly. He doesn’t give a fig.

At the end of last year, the European Union voted to renew economic sanctions on Russia for another six months. Those sanctions are based largely on anti-Russian ideological claims made by Washington and its NATO partners over a host of spurious issues, including conflict in Ukraine and the preposterous fantasy of Russia interfering in elections. Again, the vassal position of Europe is revealed by the fact that it is European economies, not the American economy, that have incurred self-defeating damage from the sanctions on Russia.

European governments need to adopt something of Trump’s “America First” policy and begin putting the interests of their people first. Europe must repudiate Washington’s antagonism and militarism towards Russia. Many of the incumbent European governments seem incapable of finding the necessary political will to be independent from Washington. That is partly why there is such a phenomenal rise in popular discontent with the European Union and establishment politicians. The powers-that-be are unresponsive and unrepresentative of popular interests and needs, creating further backlash to the establishment institutions.

Europe needs to stop being a lackey of Washington. After Trump’s blatant contempt this week, Europe has no excuse or justification to continue debasing itself as an American vassal.

%d bloggers like this: