Following the collapse of Communism in eastern Europe in 1989, the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of China as a capitalist nation, American leaders declared the United States the world’s sole superpower.
After nearly 30 years, the U.S. government is still struggling with Russia and still struggling with China.
Following the 9/11 attacks, American leaders declared a worldwide “war on terror.” After going on 20 years, that war is still going on, with no clear goal that I can see except to not admit defeat.
It’s time for our leaders and also we, the people, to consider that we may have made a mistake, painful and shameful as it may be to admit that. It’s time to face facts, which are that (1) the United States isn’t and can’t be the world’s sole superpower and (2) continuous economic warfare and actual warfare is not sustainable.
I read two good articles this morning about the current international situation. One is a survey by Pepe Escobar, a Brazilian who’s a roving correspondent for Asia Times. The other consists of constructive suggestions by Col. Andrew Bacevich, a career military officer who served in combat in Vietnam, who had a second career as a professor of history and international relations at Boston University.
Both articles will tell you things about the changing balance of power that, if you’re an American, you won’t find in your daily newspaper or evening network television broadcast.
An investigative journalist, Dilyana Gaytanzhieva, has uncovered evidence of deadly tests of biological substances in a Pentagon-funded research laboratory in Tbilisi, Georgia.
The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo for a secret US military program. Internal documents, implicating US diplomats in the transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover were leaked to me by Georgian insiders.
According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia’s capital Tbilisi.
The work at the laboratory is part of a $2.1 billion program of the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency that operates in 25 countries, including the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as well as nations in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa.
U.S. officials have said the research is aimed at promoting public health, and not on ways to spread disease to crops, animals and people. If that is so, why is the research being done under a secret military program?
Most of the coverage of President Donald Trump is based on his constant stream of tweets and social media comments, which enables him to dominate the news.
Most of the rest is based in developments of the Mueller Russiagate investigation, which may or may not turn out to be what it’s cracked up to be.
What’s out of the spotlight is reporting about the Trump administration’s actual deeds and policies.
Trump has continued American policy of attempting to dominate the world through military threats and economic sanctions, despite their evident failure. During the 2016 campaign, I saw some possibility that he, unlike Hillary Clinton, would try to wind down American military interventions. He was either lying or, what I think is more likely, unable to control the national security establishment—what some of us call the “deep state.”
Trump has continued American policy to risk nuclear confrontation with Russia and North Korea, which puts the whole world in danger. The national security establishment has undermined his feeble and inept attempts to make peace. But evidently he has frightened the North and South Korean governments into trying to make peace among themselves, which is a good thing.
Trump does not even pay lip service to trying to avert catastrophic global warming. Instead his policy is to promote fossil fuels over renewable energy, which will speed up climate change.
Nuclear war and global warming are the main existential threats to the nation and the world. Trump has failed to address the first and is actively preventing action against the second.
Trump during the campaign promised to do something about the offshoring of American jobs, which is a real problem that the other candidates ignored. But his threats and tariffs will not help because U.S. industry has become too entangled in international supply chains to free itself overnight. What’s needed is a long-range industrial policy that will rebuild American industry, which neither party has so far attempted.
Trump during the campaign promised to reform immigration, which is another real issue other candidates ignored. The cruel treatment of asylum seekers and long-time foreign residents is shameful and does not change the overall situation. I think there is something to be said for a merit-based immigration system, but I admit I don’t have a complete answer to the immigration question. But neither does Trump.
An anonymous writer wrote an article for the New York Times claiming to be working within the Trump administration to save the American people from the President’s worst excesses.
But those excesses do not include the destruction of protections of health and the environment, tax laws that redistribute income upward or expansion of the already-bloated military budget.
No, the writer regards “effective deregulation, historic tax reform and a more robust military” as “bright spots”.
The threat he and his friends are saving us from is the possibility of peace negotiations with Russia and North Korea. The national security team supposedly knows better than the elected President.
In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
President Trump reportedly is enraged at the letter writer’s disloyalty in going public with his letter. What he should be enraged at is the mutiny within his administration that this letter apparently reveals.
There are two issues here. One is the merit of Trump’s admittedly clumsy and poorly thought out attempts to reduce the threat of nuclear war with Russia and North Korea. I happen to think this is a step in the right direction, but you may disagree.
The other is the Constitutional question of the authority of the President to determine American foreign policy, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
Lawyers say that hard cases make bad law. I personally think Donald Trump is intellectually, temperamentally and morally unfit to be President, so it is tempting to side with anybody who thwarts his will.
But what’s happening now is a precedent for future administrations. Allow the national security establishment to set itself up as an un-elected fourth branch of government now, and that’s how it will be from now on, no matter who is in office.
Professional soldiers regard war as normal. The best of them adopt codes of honor that define things that you can do and not do in time of war.
Most of us Americans, during most of our history, have not regarded war as normal. Our major wars have been fought against enemies we regarded as either outside the bounds of civilization, like the Indians, or evil, like the Nazis.
We believed that war is inherently bad and that, in fighting against evil, the means that brings about the surest and quickest victory is the most moral.
That was the justification for General William T. Sherman’s march through Georgia and General Phil Sheridan’s devastation of the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War. The chivalrous Southern generals were shocked (although they didn’t extend their chivalry to black troops). Sherman’s reply was the war is hell, and there is no way to refine it.
The same kind of thinking was the justification for the Allied bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan, culminating with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I remember that era, and I don’t think American public opinion then would have tolerated any limitation on the use of force.
But now the United States is in a different situation. Our government is committed to open-ended war without any path to victory or any definition of victory beyond avoiding humiliating defeat.
We justified Sherman’s March and the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima because these were extraordinary situations, after which we could get back to normal.
Now torture, assassination, invasions and subversion of foreign countries are normal, which our government justifies by saying that we Americans are the embodiment of democracy, freedom and the rule of law, and so our enemies by definition are enemies of democracy and freedom and are outside the accepted rules of war.
Insurgents fighting in Afghanistan, Syria and other countries against U.S. and U.S.-backed forces say that, because they are fighting for liberation of their homelands, rules do not apply to them, either.
I don’t foresee us Americans adopting battlefield rules of engagement that cost American lives, nor submitting to the jurisdiction of international agencies such as the International Criminal Court, while we still seek worldwide military supremacy.
My hope is that American leaders can renounce the ambition for the USA to be the world’s only superpower, while that is still a matter of choice, and accept a role as a normal nation among others.
I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016, but I thought one of the good things about his campaign was his promise to try to improve relations with Russia.
Now I wonder whether this was even possible.
President Trump in the Helsinki summit showed himself incapable of engaging in normal diplomacy.
Even if he were, he is locked in to Cold War by Congress and by the Mueller investigation.
I have no liking for Vladimir Putin’s regime, but since Russia is the only country in the world with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States, I think the drift toward military confrontation with Russia is dangerous.
Trump in his rhetoric seems to agree. But his administration has armed Ukraine, continued to deploy nuclear weapons around Russia’s borders, sought an increased military budget agreed to increased sanctions against Russia and kept troops in Syria, which is Russia’s ally.
Either Trump does not understand the implications of what his administration is doing or he Is not in control of his administration.
Probably both are true.
It’s also hard for Trump to justify peaceful co-existence with Russia or North Korea while he is stepping up military operations around the world and flirting with war with Iran and Venezuela.
Since he is ignorant and inexperienced in diplomacy, he would need the help of experts to negotiate successfully. But he has staffed his administration with war hawks who oppose normalizing relations with Russia. He fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the only one who could have helped him.
Even if he were not the person he is, the ongoing Russiagate investigation stands in the way of peace. So long as Trump and members of his administration remain under suspicion of plotting with Russian agents to rig the 2016 election, it is not politically feasible to treat Russia like a normal country.
President Trump last week demanded that NATO allies, who have already pledged to increase their military spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, raise their spending to 4 percent.
This is supposedly necessary to defend against Russia. Whether or not he really thinks Russia is that much of a threat, the fact is that the European members of NATO already outspend Russia by a considerable amount.
France spent $57.8 billion, the UK spent $47.2 billion and Germany spent $44.3 billion—a combined total of $149.3 billion, more than double what Russia spent. Estimated US spending was $610 billion.
Its estimate was that Russia spent $61.2 billion last year, while the UK spent $50.7 billion, France spent $48.6 billion and Germany spent $41.7 billion—a combined total of $141 billion, also more than double Russia’s. The IISS estimated that US spent $602.8 billion.
So what was the purpose of Trump’s demand? I think it was to increase sales by the U.S. armaments industry.
I think his motivation was the same for his criticism Germany for importing 70 percent of its natural gas from Russia and planning a second natural gas pipeline across the Baltic.
His goal is to have Germany import American liquefied natural gas (LNG), despite its higher cost and current lack of suitable infrastructure. Russia is just an excuse. He wants American companies to get Germany’s business.s.
The European Union countries are competitors of the United States in world trade. Hence his hostility to the EU. Russia is not. Hence his lack of hostility to Russia.
Donald Trump sees foreign affairs in terms of trade, and trade in terms of making deals. That is shortsighted. The way for the United States to regain our advantage in world trade is by building up our own industry, not by demanding other countries do things that are not in their own interest.
Paul Revere was much more than the man who rode to warn the troops at Lexington and Concord that the British were on their way.
He was a true revolutionary whose methods in some ways resemble revolutionaries and insurgents of todays. He was one of the most important leaders in a network of revolutionary organizations that engaged in propaganda, espionage and preparation for armed revolt.
He helped bring Britain’s Massachusetts colony to the tipping point of armed revolt, the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, and make that revolt successful.
PAUL REVERE’S RIDE by David Hackett Fischer (1994) tells the true story of Paul Revere as part of a detailed account of the events leading up to Lexington and Concord and an hour-by-hour account of what happened on that fateful day.
In giving a granular factual account of what happened on a particular day, Fischer threw light on many things—including manners, morals and day-to-day life in 1775 Massachusetts, how American and British political and social values differed, and how this was reflected in their respective military tactics.
In 1774-1775 Britain, you could be an artisan or mechanic who worked with his hands, a merchant who handled money or a gentleman who owned land and had a title of nobility, but you couldn’t combine these roles.
Paul Revere was all three. He was a silversmith who worked with his hands, and whose work is still prized today. He was a respected merchant. And he claimed and was given the status of gentleman.
Revere’s opposite number was General Thomas Gage, commander of British forces in North American and royal governor of Massachusetts. Gage believed his power derived from the King who ruled by divine right, but subject to British laws. The British believed they were a free people because of the principle of the rule of law.
A contrary principle had grown in up colonial New England. The Puritan churches, both in England and New England, were governed by their congregations. The New England townships were governed by town meetings. The principle was that authority in government came from the bottom up, not the top down.
General Gage’s mission was to make the people of New England submit to the authority of the British crown in some way, however minor or symbolic. At least seven organizations sprung up to resist this. There was no overall leader and nobody who belonged to all seven. Paul Revere and another leader, Dr. Joseph Warren, belonged to five.
Out in the countryside, each town had is own well-ordered militia, based on the right and duty of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Some towns provided weapons for the indigent.
There was no overall organization, only a communication network. Paul Revere organized teams of riders who kept the nearby towns informed of British plans. He made many rides himself.
Gage never ordered the arrests of Paul Revere, Dr. Joseph Warren, Sam Adams, John Hancock or any of the other revolutionary organizers, because they had not broken any specific law. He was later criticized for this.
Because of the broad-based nature of the organizations, any leaders would have been quickly replaced. Would new leaders have been as effective as the old? Would this have mattered? There is no way to know.
Colonel Andrew Bacevich, in a recent article for TomDispatch, said the U.S. military is committed to a never-ending war whose aim is no longer victory, but to avoid admitting defeat.
Some generals have even stated publicly that they don’t foresee a time when the “war on terror” will ever come to an end.
That’s not their fault, Bacevich wrote. Everything humanly possible to achieve victory in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria short of genocide has been tried by the U.S. military and failed. But so long as American forces remain in those countries, American neoconservatives can say the United States has not been defeated.
Bacevich pointed to the First World War, when it soon should have become obvious that continuing the war was more harmful to all participants than any gain that any of them could have hoped to achieve through victory. Yet no head of state except Lenin in Russia could think of anything to do except fight on until the end.
This was the great nightmare of H.G. Wells, in The War in the Air and The Shape of Things to Come—that a future world war would be impossible to stop until there was a complete breakdown of governmental authority and social order.
We in the USA are a long way from that. The only consequences of “defeat” would be giving up the false dream of world empire.
But there may come a time when the nations our government is trying to conquer and dominate will combine and give us Americans a taste of our own medicine. If and when that happens, all our choices will be bad.
I’ve never believed that Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un would give up North Korea’s nuclear weapons, mainly because, if I were him, I would regard nuclear weapons as the only way to deter an attack by the United States.
But Joel S. Wit, a former American diplomat who participated in negotiations with North Korea in the 1990s and again in informal talks in 2013, said he believes Kim really would be willing to give up nuclear weapons in return for cessation of hostilities by the United States.
Kim wants diplomatic recognition by the United States, a peace treaty formally ending the Korean Conflict and an end to trade restrictions and economic sanctions, Wit said. In return, KIm would freeze nuclear weapons development and, step by step in return for U.S. actions, to dismantle nuclear and missile test sites.
This would not be the same thing as giving up nuclear weapons entirely, but it would be a sign that Kim wants peace, and a first step to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. There is nothing that the United States is doing to North Korea that is of any direct benefit to the American people.
These objectives weren’t achieved at the Kim-Trump summit, and maybe the negotiations will ultimately fail, but the door is still open.
The biggest reason for hope is the desire of President Moon Jei-in of South Korea to make peace with North Korea. As long as the governments of the two parts of Korea were enemies, peace was impossible. If they are no longer enemies, peace is achievable.
President Moon’s accomplishment is like West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, which resulted in the signing of a treaty in 1972 between the West and East German governments recognizing each other’s right to exist. This didn’t end the Cold War, let alone end the East Germany Communist dictatorship, but it helped make possible.
I don’t see any path to democracy in North Korea, but bringing the North Korean people into contact with the outside world would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
The following cartoon is from Harper’s Weekly on August 22, 1865.
This unsigned Harper’s Weekly cartoon honors the service and recognizes the equal manhood of the black and white soldiers who had served the Union cause during the Civil War.
Although black men volunteered to serve in the Union armed forces as soon as the Civil War began, their service was rejected, ostensibly because of a federal law which prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the United States military. (Although the law was enacted in 1792, blacks had served during the War of 1812.)
Both the eagerness of black volunteers and the refusal to enlist them were based significantly on the assumption that their military service would foster emancipation of the slaves.
At the beginning of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln realized the dire necessity of keeping the border states (slave states which did not secede) in the Union, and so he initially rejected attempts to arm blacks or emancipate slaves.
That situation had changed by the summer of 1862 as the number of white volunteers dwindled, the number of contrabands (escaped slaves under Union military protection) rose and the border states became more secure for the Union.
In July 1862, Congress authorized the use of black men in the Union military, and President Lincoln informed his cabinet that he would soon proclaim the emancipation of slaves in Confederate territory.
The use of black servicemen, like the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863), stirred considerable opposition throughout the Union states because of racial prejudice.
Black servicemen were segregated from whites in special “colored” units under the leadership of white officers, such as Colonel Robert Gould Shaw of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry. (The United States armed forces were not desegregated until the 1950s.)
I think that’s true. How much should we the American people worry about this?
Paul Street wrote a savage but accurate article for Truthdig about reasons why the world in general would welcome the downfall of U.S. power. The enumeration of the death and destruction caused by U.S. military interventions, acts of war, covert action and economic sanctions makes is painful reading for an American.
And what benefit have we, the American people, gotten from it? Little or nothing, that I can see. In fact, the welfare of Americans has been sacrificed to maintaining American military power. We can’t afford to maintain decent public services, but cost is no consideration when it comes to the military.
That doesn’t mean that loss of American global power would be painless. We would have to find new ways to employ the millions of people employed by the U.S. military, the covert action agencies and their many contractors and suppliers.
Having a large number of unemployed, some highly qualified in the use of lethal force and others in covert political action, would be no small problem. Neither would being a pariah among nations, as the Germans were for a time after their defeat in World War Two.
The British and French people were better off in the long run after they lost their overseas empires. The German and Japanese people were better off in the long run after their defeats in World War Two. We Americans will be better off in the long run if we give up the quest for world domination.
I don’t watch network television any more and, when I did, I hardly ever watched Fox News. But in this clip, Tucker Carlson says almost everything that needs to be said about why going to war in Syria is a mistake.
The United States has no vital interests in Syria, the war has created terrible suffering to the Syrian people, and, while President Assad is a ruthless dictator, the radical jihadist fanatics being back by the U.S. would be worse, especially for the Christian minority in Syria.
The only thing Carlson leaves out is the possibility of a clash with Russian forces in Syria, leading to a U.S-Russian war. Invading small countries that do not endanger the U.S. is morally wrong as well as counterproductive. Fighting a country with the power to bring about mutual assured destruction is not only wrong, but dangerous.
Congress should invoke the War Powers Act. If President Trump starts a war without authorization by Congress, that would be grounds for impeachment.
The United States government claims we are under attack from Russia. That is the justification for military buildup in Syria and along Russia’s borders, for waging economic war against Russia and sanctions against Russian individuals, and for a diplomatic campaign against Russia.
Before we blunder into a nuclear war, which would mean the end of the United States, the Russian Federation and much of the rest of humanity, we need to look at the basis for these claims. Specifically, we need to assess the evidence for three claims: –
That the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election campaign and brought about the election of Donald J. Trump.
That President Trump knew about this and “colluded” with Vladimir Putin to bring it about.
Ideally, I would advocate reserving judgement until the results of the Mueller investigation are in. But official Washington, including the press corps and the top leaders of the Democratic Party, are acting as if the results are already in.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that newspaper articles should be classified as truths, probabilities, possibilities and falsehoods.
Here is how I see the balance of truths, probabilities, possibilities and falsehoods:
∞∞∞
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin stated several times in 2016 that he would be pleased if Donald Trump was elected, because Trump advocated better relations with Russia.
Why would he not? Russia in 2016 was hard-pressed by U.S.-led economic sanctions and a U.S. military buildup. Hillary Clinton was and is an extreme war hawk.
Putin is a ruthless operator with few scruples. There is credible circumstantial evidence that Russian intelligence sources engineered a false flag terror attack in order to rally public sentiment against the rebel province of Chechnya. There is strong evidence that Russian intelligence services murdered the dissident and human rights advocate Alexander Litvinenko.
So it is possible that the Russian government penetrated the Democratic National Committee computer files and published e-mails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton, or that individual Russian hackers did so with the knowledge and encouragement of the Russian government.
The reasons I have doubts this happened are (1) the FBI has never conducted its own examination of the DNC computers and (2) the FBI has never interviewed Julian Assange about his claim that he received the information from a whistleblower. Why would they not do this? Were they afraid of what they might find out?
Maybe the DNC was hacked by more than one person or group, acting independently of each other.
In any case, the result of the DNC e-mail hacks was to disseminate truthful information, which is not an act of war.
If Vladimir Putin did try to engineer Donald Trump’s election, he must feel buyer’s remorse. President Trump has approved weapons shipments to Ukraine, which goes beyond what President Obama ever did. He wants to keep U.S. troops in Syria indefinitely to undermine Russia’s ally, Syria. He is continuing the nuclear arms race against Russia.
Like President Obama, Trump talks about improving relations with Russia. But like Obama, he so far has done nothing to make this happen. Putin, with all his ruthlessness, is a defender of the status quo. It is the U.S. government that seeks regime change in targeted countries, and that seeks military dominance in every important region of the world.
It isn’t wrong to negotiate with tyrants and terrorists. It is wrong to prop them up with money and weapons, but it isn’t wrong to negotiate with them when the alternative is mutually destructive war.
But if you have no plan to get rid of them or if there’s no assurance that their successors will be any better than they are, then sooner or later you have to deal.
President Nixon negotiated with Mao Zedong and ended the Cold War with China. President Reagan negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev and ended the Cold War with the USSR.
President Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Kim Jong-un is a good thing, not a bad thing. I think the odds are against success, but you never know.
Donald Trump
The reason I think the odds are against success is that the U.S. goal is for North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, and, if I were Kim, I never would agree to that.
Kim in the past has said his government would never give up nuclear weapons so long as the United States refused to sign a peace treaty ending the Korean Conflict of 1950-1953 or to guarantee it would not attack North Korea.
The implication is that if a peace treaty was signed, and if the U.S. government renounced the use of force against North Korea, Kim would consider giving up nuclear weapons.
But without nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, there is no way North Korea can deter an attack by the United States, except maybe by the threat of a massive attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is just across the border.
Would negotiations with the United States even by on the table if North Korea didn’t already have nuclear weapons?
President Trump is talking about renouncing the U.S. nuclear weapons agreement with Iran. How could Kim be sure he wouldn’t renounce an agreement with North Korea?
Maybe Kim would agree to give up nuclear weapons in return for a guarantee against attack by China and/or Russia. Is this something the U.S. government would want?
Lee Camp, writing for Truthdig, pointed out that Democrats in Congress have no qualms about giving President Donald Trump the powers of a dictator. Instead of standing up for the American people, he said, corporate-owned Democrats have strengthened the president.
The Democrats have helped, voted for, and often argued in favor of all of the following:
Giving Trump unlimited war powers.
Giving Trump unlimited trade negotiation powers.
Giving Trump unlimited surveillance powers.
Giving Trump the power to lock someone up indefinitely without a trial or charges under the National Defense Authorization Act.
If this is considered “resistance,” then I don’t want to be a part of it. I’d rather spend my time resisting the “Resistance” and thereby taking this dictator’s toolkit away from Donald Trump.
Most of my Democratic friends are obsessed with Trump. Every discussion of politics veers to the most recent foolish thing Trump has said or done.
They hope and expect that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will prove that Trump is in league with the Russian government and provide grounds for impeachment.
Even if that works out, which I doubt, they’re then faced with President Mike Pence, who from a liberal Democratic standpoint is just as bad as Trump on matters of policy, but more effective.
On matters of policy, there’s little difference between Trump and the dominant faction in the Republican Party.
On fundamental questions of war and peace, Constitutional rights and economic policy, there is no fundamental difference between Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress.
That’s why some Democrats in Congress would rather allow Trump the powers of a dictator than to set limits on the power of a future Democratic President.
It’s true that, out of the six items, only the war powers and the surveillance powers were voted on during the Trump administration.
That doesn’t matter. When you vote to remove restraints on Presidential power, you have empowered all Presidents, present and future—not just to the one you happen to like.
Update 3/5/2018: According to this article in Der Spiegel, Russians didn’t participate in the attack and few of them were killed. If that’s so, how did the other version of events originate? Fog of war, or something more sinister? At this point, I don’t know what to believe.
During the whole of the Cold War, American and Soviet troops never engaged in direct combat. But early last month, Russian mercenaries attacked a U.S. position in Syria, and an estimated 100 to 300 Russians were killed.
The Russian troops reportedly were employed by a private company funded by a Russian named Yevgeny Prigozhin, who also funded the company accused of illegally meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
U.S. troops and an allied militia called Syrian Democratic Forces were protecting an oil refinery at Deir Ezzor in eastern Syria. The SDF position was attacked by Syrian government forces along with by Russian troops employed by the Wagner PMC (private military company).
U.S. forces counter-attacked with artillery, air strikes and drone strikes, smashed the attacking force and didn’t suffer any casualties themselves.
The Russian government said no Russian government troops were involved. All the Russians in the battle were private individuals who were in Syria for their own reasons, the government said.
The U.S. government also had no official comment, but since then journalists have written a good bit based on off the record comments by U.S. intelligence and Treasury officials.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, known at “Putin’s chef,” got his start as a hot dog vendor, then the owner of a chain of restaurants, a caterer to the Kremlin and then a caterer to the Russian armed forces. He owns two companies, Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering.
Both he and his companies were indicted on charges related to interfering in the 2016 election, and he and his companies are on the U.S. sanctions list.
He reportedly is an investor in Wagner PMC, which was founded by Dmitry Utkin, also on the U.S. sanctions list. Wagner PMC reportedly employed the “green men,” troops without insignia who engineered the Russian takeover of Crimea and supported Russian-speaking separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Prigozhin allegedly owns or controls Evro Polis, a Russian company that has been promised a 25 percent share of oil and gas revenues in territories recaptured by the Syrian government from the Islamic State (ISIS). Evidently Wagner PMC’s mission is to help secure these territories, and that was the reason for the attack.
I can see why Vladimir Putin might work with a private individual such as Yevgeny Prigozshin. I don’t think Russians are any more willing than Americans to see their sons drafted to fight wars in distant countries for obscure purposes. Hiring mercenaries solves this political problem, and also provides a way to deny responsibility if thing go wrong.
But what if it is the other way around? What if this whole operation is to serve the business strategy of a Russian oligarch? This is a dangerous situation, because both the Russian and U.S. governments could be sucked in a conflict they didn’t intend or expect.
During my lifetime, I’ve read a fair amount about the Civil War, but two books that I read during the past few weeks bring home its reality in a new way.
They show how different the war was to people at the time than it seems in the light of history, and how events could have turned out differently from the way they did.
It was not inevitable that the war would last as long as it did, that the North would win or that slavery would have been abolished even if the North had won.
The two books are IN THE PRESENCE OF MINE ENEMIES: War in the Heart of America (2003) and THE THIN LIGHT OF FREEDOM: The Civil War and Emancipation in the Heart of America (2017) both by Edward L. Ayers.
His window into the war is a collection of source material—letters, dairies, newspaper accounts and the like from two communities— Franklin County, Pa., and Augusta County, Va.—collected over a period of decades as part of a special project of the University of Virginia.
The two counties are at opposite ends of the Great Valley running north and south between the Blue Ridge and the Appalachians, which was a major battleground of the war.
They were more alike than they were different. Both consisted of prosperous small farms and small towns. Augusta was different from the plantation South; Franklin was more typical of the North.
Ayers began with accounts of the 1859 celebration of the Fourth of July in the two counties. The white people of both considered themselves loyal to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Both wanted to preserve the Union. Neither wanted to abolish slavery.
Yet within a few years they were at war and hated each other. Reading these books helps me understand places such as Bosnia and Lebanon, which differing peoples can live together in peace for generations, yet, in a short period of time, be brought to the point of killing each other.
In the 1860 election, Augusta County supported the Constitutional Union party, which was pro-slavery, but anti-secession. Franklin County supported the Republican Party, which was anti-slavery on only one point—that slavery should be barred from United States territories, in order to protect Northern white workers from competition with slave labor.
Slaveowners in the Deep South saw this as an ultimate threat, because no new slave states would have been admitted to the Union, which in the long run would have made slaveowners a politically powerless minority.
In Virginia, delegates from Augusta County voted against secession. But as secession proceeded, the question changed from favoring the Union vs. secession to favoring the North vs. the South. Once the decision was made, the anti-secession delegates fought bravely the Confederate Army or otherwise supported the war wholeheartedly.
The white people of Augusta County were willing to break up the Union in order to preserve slavery. The white people of Franklin County became willing to abolish slavery in order to preserve the Union. Black people in both counties had their own w
None foresaw how long the war would last, how many lives would be lost nor what the result would be.
Prior to the 2016 election, Vladimir Putin said he would welcome the election of Donald Trump because Trump advocated better relations with Russia.
But, as Robert W. Merry of The American Conservative pointed out, any faint hope of that happening was snuffed out by the exposure of Russian attempts to influence the election by means of fake posts on social media. The Russians shot themselves in the foot.
Most of us Americans have no perspective on this because we don’t know, or choose to ignore, the extent of our own government’s meddling in foreign countries.
U.S. meddling not only includes propaganda, open and covert, but taking sides in civil wars and outright invasions of foreign countries whose leaders oppose U.S. policy.
I don’t argue the U.S. government should tolerate violations of American election law by foreigners in order to atone for American sins abroad. I do say this should not be used as an excuse for risking war or suppressing dissent.
So why is he digging in his heels over this one thing?
I don’t see any fundamental conflicts of interest between Russia and the United states, except maybe in the Arctic, and none that are worth the risk of nuclear war.
Vladimir Putin is authoritarian and ruthless, but no more so than many other world leaders, including Boris Yeltsin, with whom the U.S. government got along and gets along with just fine.
The problem with economic sanctions directed against whole countries is that they harm the common people of a country without touching the leaders. If American leaders want to use U.S. economic power to reward and punish, economic sanctions aimed at individuals are probably the least harmful and most effective of doing it.
But overuse of economic sanctions of all kinds will be harmful to the United States in the long run because foreign countries will protect themselves by disconnecting from U.S. banks and the U.S. dollar.
Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But there was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not sufficiently under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. ==George Orwell, 1984
But now we’re told that Russia is waging war against the United States and always has been. It’s a funny kind of war, though—more like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” than “Red Dawn.”
No Russian troops are massing on U.S. borders. The Russian government makes no threat against the United States.
The claim is that the Russians—either the Russian government or certain individual Russians—are exercising a kind of mind control over Americans. Russian agents allegedly denied Hillary Clinton her due share of the 2016 President vote and allegedly manipulated President Trump into being less anti-Russian than he should be.
But even if all the Russiagate charges are true, which I doubt, what the Russians have done is no different from what the old Soviet Union did, and what the United States continues to do down to this day. During the time Vladimir Putin has been in office, it is the United States, not Russia, that has announced policies of “regime change” against countries that never threatened Americans.
Last year the wreckage of at least 104 North Korean fishing boats washed up on the shores of northern Japan. The crews were either missing, or dead from starvation and exposure, or, in a few cases, only half-dead.
What happened was that they got so far from home that they did not have enough fuel to make it back home, and so died at sea.
Never before have so many derelict North Korea fishing boats been found. No doubt this is but a fraction of the actual number of lost boats.
What this means is that North Koreans are so desperate for food that they will risk going out to sea in dangerous waters with inadequate fuel.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview that this represents a triumph of American policy. North Korea is really feeling the bite of American economic sanctions, he said.
Economic war can be as deadly as a shooting war, although it hardly ever brings about a change in regime. If there comes a time when there is only one bowl of rice left in North Korea, it will be eaten by Kim Jong Un. If there are only two bowls left, they will be shared by Kim and his bodyguard.
The U.S. has been waging war by means of economic sanctions long before Tillerson or President Donald Trump took office. Economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein back in the 1990s resulted in the deaths of thousands of young Iraqi children want of medicine and proper nutrition.
The appeal of economic sanctions as a substitute for war is that it seems to be a safe way of waging war. That is true only in the short run. Generations later people in North Korea, Iraq, Venezuela and other countries will remember how their people suffered under the U.S. economic blockage.
During the First World War, Britain blockaded food imports into Germany. The food blockade continued even after the German army surrendered, in order to make force the German government to agree to the Allies’ peace terms. Many Germans grew up with stunted growth because they were born during the blockade.
I don’t say the food blockade was, in and of itself, the main reason for the rise of Hitler, but it surely contributed to the German hatred of the Allies and desire for revenge, which the Nazis exploited
I think in generations to come, there will be millions of people through the world with similar reasons for a desire for revenge against Americans.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of Donald Trump. But American foreign policy was on the wrong track long before Trump took office. It’s not enough to just put things back the way they were in 2016 and before. It is necessary to abandon worldwide military intervention as a policy and worldwide military intervention as an achievable goal.
Russian-backed forces have defeated the so-called Islamic State in Syria. U.S.-backed forces have defeated the Islamic State in Iraq. Peace may be at hand.
The winners in these wars were Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and the Shi’ite militias in Iraq. The losers, in addition to the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL and Da’esh), were Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates and Israel.
The United States was in a contradictory position. By invading Iraq and overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. gave power to Iraq’s Shi’ite majority, which is aligned with Iran. This went against long-range U.S. goals, which are to support Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Also, the official justification for intervention in the Middle East was to fight Al Qaeda terrorists. But the regimes attacked by the U.S. government—Saddam’s Iraq and Assad’s Syria—were enemies of Al Qaeda, as was the Ayatollahs’ Iran. No matter what U.S. did, it would either strengthen Al Qaeda or strengthen Iran.
Given the inherent contradiction in U.S. policy, I think the current outcome was the best that could be expected. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump deserve credit for not escalating a new war to keep Russians out of Syria and Iranians out of Iraq. I’m not sure Hillary Clinton, given her record of starting wars, would have shown the same wisdom.
Daniel Ellsberg is famous for leaking The Pentagon Papers, a secret history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. Now he has written a new book, The Doomsday Machine, which reveals the history of how close the United States came to all-out nuclear war.
The war policy of President Eisenhower was “massive retaliation.” That meant the only U.S. response to Soviet or Chinese aggression would be all-out nuclear war.
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles went to the brink of war at least three times, Life magazine reported at the time. There was even an argument during the Kennedy-Nixon debates as to whether nuclear war would be justified if the Chinese government took over the tiny coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu.
That was known at the time. What wasn’t known was that the authority to order a nuclear strike was delegated to military commanders in the field. We the people thought the decision rested solely with the President. That wasn’t so.
U.S. plans called for the complete destruction of every city in Russia and China. Pentagon planners told Ellsberg that this would result in 325 million casualties in Russia and China, plus an additional 100 million in Communist-ruled countries in eastern Europe, 100 million in neutral countries and 100 million among western European allies.
As Ellsberg said, this is the equivalent of 100 Holocausts. It doesn’t include the number who would die as a result of Soviet retaliation.
Evidently it was thought necessary to credibly threaten to destroy Europe in order to defend it.
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s ideas about escalation during the Kennedy administration can be seen as an attempt to create an alternative to immediate massive retaliation.
But while, in a way, well-intended, McNamara’s ideas were illogical. Once launching a nuclear war is an option, the logic of game theory says you should be the first and not the second to escalate to nuclear warfare.
Ellsberg said every Cold War President through Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan gave military theater commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. He doesn’t know the situation now.
One difference is that U.S. presidents now threaten nuclear attacks against countries without nuclear weapons—a crime against humanity in and of itself, even if you don’t consider the deaths of neutrals and allies.
The U.S. government should join with the Russian government to resume the process of gradual elimination of nuclear weapons that was begun in the Reagan-Gorbachev years. In the meantime, Congress should enact a law to forbid a U.S. nuclear first strike without a formal declaration of war.
