Who Wants This War?

Well unless you hide during the day under a rock then you are aware of how close the US and Iran maybe to a war……personally, I do ot think it is a good idea but then I am an antiwar person and cannot see too many wars as a good thing.

But ask yourself….just who is it that wants this war?

Trump and the Secstate and NatSec adviser do not seem to be on the same page….so who wants this?

Speaking on state TV of the prospect of a war in the Gulf, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to dismiss the idea.

“There won’t be any war. …We don’t seek a war, and [the Americans] don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests.”

The ayatollah’s analysis is correct. Consider the consequences of a war with the United States for Iran.

Iran’s hundreds of swift boats and handful of submarines would be sunk. Its ports would be mined or blockaded. Oil exports and oil revenue would halt. Airfields and missile bases would be bombed. The Iranian economy would crash. Iran would need years to recover.

 
But not to worry….the Speaker of the House said that the Congress have not voted for war….

The Trump administration does not have congressional authorization to go to war against Iran, the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives warned on Thursday amid escalating tensions in the region.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she backed what appeared to be U.S. President Donald Trump’s aversion to actual military conflict with Tehran.

“I like what I hear from the president — that he has no appetite on this,” she said. The Washington Post, citing several unnamed U.S. officials, reported late Wednesday that Trump was frustrated that his advisers may be rushing into war and that he preferred a more diplomatic approach and direct talks with Iran.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-congress/u-s-house-speaker-congress-has-not-approved-war-against-iran-idUKKCN1SM1WA

Really?  The Congress has not thought it important enough to vote on any war since the invasion of Afghanistan….so what makes me think they will have any say whatsoever in whether we go to war with Iran or not?

Besides they, the Congress, cannot stop a war any way….look at the failure with the Yemen conflict….the Congress has become a toothless tiger.

Advertisements

On The Road To War!

It seems that the advisers to the president are determined to get into a shooting war with Iran…..personally I do not think any of these accusations are true (that means they are LIES)…..apparently I am not alone…..

The narrative of an “increased threat” posed by Iran and its proxies across the Middle East is being used to justify a US military buildup and a general escalation of tensions in the area. British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, however, has raised serious doubts about that.

Maj. Gen. Ghika said that there has been “no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces,” despite the claims from US officials, mostly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Perhaps more damningly, Ghika says he does not believe there is any daylight between Britain’s assessment of “no increased threat” and the assessment from US intelligence.

In other words, the US officials are lying about the intelligence, presumably to justify the growing US buildup and to keep hyping the possibility of a war with Iran. US Central Command, however, angrily shot back contradicting Ghika, insisting his statement runs counter to established US position on the matter.

CENTCOM’s statement is not exactly a refutation of Ghika’s position on UK and US intelligence. Rather, it refers to “identified credible threats” but provides no indication where they came from. It clearly wasn’t intelligence agencies, because the threats were only made available to intelligence agencies after their identification.

Early reports on the “Iranian proxies” allegation suggested it came out of Israel, and that it was built around Israeli officials believing it would make sense for Iran to do that sort of thing to attack the US. This could suggest it was never verified by US or UK intelligence, and was rather just accepted as the official version because it fit with US policy at the time.

(antiwar.com)

US is fanning those flames vigorously…..(do not believe all the denials)…..these neocons want war……

The Sunday “sabotage” on oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates warrants a “thorough investigation,” according to US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia John Abizaid, who told reporters that he wants responses “short of war” to be taken.

Other officials indicated on Monday that they consider Iran the main suspect of the attack, though they have conceded that they don’t have any real evidence of this, let alone proof. Abizaid said starting a war over it would not be in the interest of Iran, the US, or Saudi Arabia.

Which is a potentially controversial position for the ambassador to take, given the ongoing US military buildup in the Middle East, centered around the idea of a war with Iran. Even if he believes this isn’t in America’s interest, nor justified on unproven allegations of sabotage, it seems to be the general direction the US is headed anyhow.

In particular, the idea of having a thorough investigation before the reaction is not the way the US has done things in recent years. At a time when hawks are lining up to call for action against Iran on any pretext, it is vital to hear the call to let cooler heads prevail.

(antiwar.com)

Filter out all the warmongering BS and think about one thing……this article was published in The American Conservative……

David French defends one of the great crimes of the 21st century:

Today is the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and Twitter is alive with condemnations of the conflict — countered by precious few defenses. Yet I believed the Iraq War was just and proper in 2003, and I still believe that today.

There is good reason that the Iraq war has “precious few defenders.” The Iraq war was a great crime and a massive blunder. Not only was it illegal under international law, but it was undeniably unjust according to any fair reading of just war theory. Our government did not have just cause to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. Preventive war can never be justified, because it can never be just to strike first against another country because you fear what their government might one day do to you. That is simply aggression committed out of irrational fear. To say that you still think 16 years later that invading Iraq is “just and proper” is to admit that you don’t know what those words mean.

Preventive War Is Always Unjust

The “Just War Theory”? 

A confusing thing but as usual I can help……Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

In this world today, the 21st century in case there is any confusion) war does not make sense….the only people to gain are those that make the weapons of destruction.

We Americans have allowed too many wars in our name…..all the deaths are in our name…..and what does anyone gain?

****Breaking News******

News came out after I had written this draft for post today……

The US Embassy in Iraq says the State Department has ordered all non-essential, non-emergency government staff to leave the country right away amid escalating tensions with Iran. The security alert, published on the embassy’s website on Wednesday, comes after Washington last week said it had detected new and urgent threats from Iran and its proxy forces in the region targeting Americans and American interests. On Sunday, the embassy advised Americans to avoid travel to Iraq, citing “heightened tensions.”

And the world waits!

Making America Great Again–Part 29

My continuing covering the series written by Maj. Danny Sjursen….a look at American history that few have ever seen…..an excellent look in the form of Howard Zinn……

But first my reader can get caught up on this excellent series here…….

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10;Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21; Part 22; Part 23; Part 24; Part 25; Part 26; Part 27; Part 28.

Today’s part is about the war I fought…Vietnam……there are lessons i to be learned from this war and yet NO one learned a damn thing……

It is the war that never dies. Vietnam, the very word shrouded with extraordinary meaning in the American lexicon. For some it represents failure; for others guilt; for still more, anger that the war could have and should have been won. Americans are still arguing about this war, once the nation’s longest. For those who lived through it—the last war the U.S. fought partly with draftees—it was almost impossible not to take sides; to be pro-war or anti-war became a social and political identity unto itself. This tribal split even reached into the ranks of military veterans, as some joined antiwar movements and others remained vociferously sure that the war needed to be fought through to victory. Indeed, today, even the active-duty U.S. military officer corps is rent over assessment of the Vietnam legacy.

 
If I was still teaching then this series would be required reading….this is the history that Americans need to know and not some fanciful crap put out by reactionaries.
 
Maj. Danny is a great historian that tells it like it is/was……kudos and congrats to him….and anyone that reads his series……very informative.
 
 
Learn Stuff!
 
Class Dismissed!

Can Afghanistan Be Saved?

The US went to Afghanistan after the cowardly attacks of 9/11 to get the mastermind of the attacks…..we failed originally but we stayed to save Afghanistan from the brutality of the Taleban…..to be honest…we are failing at that attempt as well.

There are peace talks these days between the government of Afghanistan and the Taleban and the US is playing a minor role (or so we are told)…..but all indications are that the US wants peace much more than the Afghans…..

I recently read that only a little over half of Americans are even aware the U.S. is, after 17 years, still fighting a war in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has spent more than $900 billion dollars in military and civilian support. This does not include the human toll of those killed and the tens of thousands wounded.

Unfortunately, there is little to show for all this expense.

Yes, Afghanistan has an army, but without U.S. forces they would quickly succumb to the Taliban, who today control more than half of the country. On the civilian side, the Afghan government, despite proven reserves of valuable minerals including lithium and rare earth (estimates are over a trillion dollars worth) remains dependent upon a constant stream of donor dollars.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/27/afghanistan-trump-taliban-opium-corruption-column/3589562002/

Basically we Americans are trying to save Afghans from themselves….and in the long run (if that benchmark has not been met yet) do Afghans want to be “saved”?

After nearly two decades of bloodshed, meaningful progress is finally being made towards a conclusion of the war in Afghanistan. Negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar have achieved an uncommon consistency. On the domestic front, a bipartisan resolution matching the Taliban’s proposed timeline has emerged in the U.S. Senate. The main voices opposing peace originate from within the Pentagon and the Afghan National Unity Government. In a departure from their constitutionally mandated subordinate role, top generals are calling for yet another extension on murky grounds. Afghan president Ashraf Ghani has also urged against a timely withdraw, claiming that the government in Kabul lacks the strength required for independence. Whether by incompetence or corruption, neither contingent should have the credibility to dictate the plan for removing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

The conditions Washington and Kabul point to as requirements for a withdraw cannot be met. The National Unity Government does not represent a plurality of the Afghan people, and with former warlords in its ranks, it will continue to lack the requisite legitimacy to govern. In spite of the nearly $900 billion dedicated to reconstruction and governance efforts since 2001, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) suffer from infiltration, ineptitude, and high casualty rates. It is unclear how additional years, lives, and billions of dollars will guide Afghanistan toward a stable future. The peace talks in Doha represent gradual yet genuine progress, and they warrant all the support Washington can muster. Alternatives to this current opportunity for peace represent a continuation of the same failed strategies toward an even more shameful, inevitable departure.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/america-cannot-save-afghanistan-55142

If Afghanistan cannot be saved then why must the US continue to pour cash and blood into the country?

There is a question for your next president or supreme leader (the title may change by next election.

COWARDS!

The armed conflict in Yemen has been raging and the Saudis have with their allies destroyed most of the country and displaced millions to the point of starvation with disease running rampant…..

Back in February I wrote that the Congress was about to do something bold to cease US support for the Saudis genocide of the Yemanis…..

In no place is congressional action more urgent than in Yemen, where approximately half of the population—nearly 14 million people—remain on the brink of starvation due to the war and the ensuing economic collapse in the country. Although congressional pressure caused the Trump administration to finally call for an end to the war last October and cut off U.S. refueling support in November, the United States remains intimately involved in the Saudi- and UAE-led military operations in the country.

 
The Congress passed the bill and it has gone to Trump for his veto….which he did (did the Saudis pay for that veto?).  Now the bill goes back to the Congress for an attempt at an override of the veto.
 
The M-IC will use all its muscle to see that the override attempt is a failure……Pompeo voiced his contempt for the bill…..
With the Senate planning this week to “process” President Trump’s veto of the War Powers Act challenge to the Yemen War, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took the reins to try to defend US involvement in Yemen as in America’s best interest.

Pompeo’s argument centered on the idea that the US was obliged to help Saudi Arabia defend itself from retaliatory fights, now that the Saudis had launched a war and provoked that retaliation.

On top of that poor argument for an obligation, Pompeo relied on what the administration seems to believe is the most compelling argument, even if it is wholly based on a lie. He argued that the whole war was Iran’s fault, and not intervening would make Iran happy.

This was the argument Saudi Arabia successfully used to sucker the US into this war, though to be fair that didn’t take much effort. The Iran never had more than tentative links to the Shi’ite Houthi movement, and that they’re not even the same type of Shi’ites, was lost on the administration, and Pompeo seems to hope it will also be lost on the Senate.

Pompeo’s argument is effectively that the US has blundered so deeply into a foolish war they have to keep plugging away, and to the extent we can fool ourselves into thinking we’re somehow sticking it to Iran we might feel a little better about all the harm we’re doing to Yemen.
 
(antiwar.com)
The Saudi money is well spent……the COWARDS in the Senate has failed to override……
Calls to reassert Congressional authority over US war-making failed to muster enough votes to override President Trump’s veto of the Yemen War Powers resolution, which demanded Trump withdraw US involvement from the unauthorized war. The vote was 53-45, short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

Opposition to the war was driven by the war crimes being committed by the US-backed Saudis, and the Saudi assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, which had some in Congress questioning the US backing them in a war.

The Trump Administration argued variously that Yemen didn’t count as a war, that Trump had unilateral authority on the war, and that the war in Yemen would be bad for Iran and therefore in America’s interests.

Though none of these arguments stood up to close scrutiny, the Republican leadership in the Senate broadly echoed them. Ultimately, this was still enough to keep the veto from being overridden.
 
(antiwar.com)
Time for the money the Saudis are spreading around like peanut butter come to light….and the cowards that accept the bribes step out of the shadows.
 
And those “bribes” turn into money cash in support of this war…..

Michael Knights, Ken Pollack, and Barbara Walter make an unpersuasive case that the U.S. should increase its support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen:

True peace in Yemen will remain elusive unless both sides accept that they have nothing to gain from more fighting. We are not there yet. To get there will require not cutting off U.S. support for Saudi Arabia but threatening to doube down on it unless the Houthis honor their commitments to the UN and are ready to disgorge most of their initial conquests. If Washington is serious about ending the war, it must come to terms with this uncomfortable fact.

The “fact” mentioned here is not a fact at all. It is an unfounded opinion offered in support of a truly reprehensible policy idea. Trying to get the Houthis to “disgorge most of their initial conquests” is what the Saudi coalition has been trying and failing to do for more than four years. Threatening to increase U.S. support to the coalition isn’t going to change this, and actually increasing U.S. military assistance to an indefensible war is an unacceptable option that would only serve to escalate and prolong the conflict.

 
The US support of the Saudi’s war is costing more than money.
 
It needs to cease!
 
Turn The Page!
 

It Is Not Regime Change

Is this post about Venezuela? Nope it is Iran that is in process of a plan for regime change.

When the United States considered labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization in 2017, then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security advisor H.R. McMaster were still with the Trump White House. In their places now are Iran hawks Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. The White House’s national security team is, therefore, more heavily in favor of taking a more aggressive stance toward the Islamic republic. With the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, no influential voices remain to back a moderate course of action. Neither the Pentagon nor the CIA support applying the terrorism label to the IRGC, but their sway is less than it once was. There is now a higher probability that the United States will follow through with the designation. If the State Department does indeed label the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, it would mark the first time in U.S. history that it would have singled out a branch of a foreign military for such treatment.

On the question of targeting Iranian allies, the United States could designate several Iran-trained militias operating as part of Iraq’s security architecture as terrorist groups under one of several laws. But the consequences of doing so could be high. Although those designations could fall short of provoking Iran to target U.S. personnel in the region, such a decision would stoke anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq, where these groups have become more entrenched in recent years, and could inspire Iranian-backed popular mobilization units or other groups to lash out at U.S. military, diplomatic and economic targets in Iraq. It would also strengthen the push from Iran-allied politicians in the Iraqi parliament to amend or revoke Iraq’s agreement with the United States to maintain troops in the country. Enforcing such a designation would create a complex problem of monitoring compliance for U.S. and other Western companies given that many of the Iranian-backed militias also have political wings. Earlier this month, the United States designated the Iranian-trained Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba militia in Iraq a terrorist group in what could mark the initial phase of this strategy.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/03/27/the_key_to_countering_iran_114288.html

Sanctions are designed to force a solution out of Iran……a solution that could lead to a shooting conflict…….

Diplomacy is out of the question with the Trumpites……these war hawks will not be happy until the bullets fly……

Can Trump hold back these rebel rousers?

Speaking on Wednesday at The Asia Society, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says that he does not believe that President Trump wants a war in Iran, citing Trump’s promise “not to waste another $7 trillion” in the Middle East.

That said, Zarif said he believes that Trump aims to ‘bring us to our knees to talk,” while contrasting him with John Bolton and his “B team” who are angling for “regime change at the very least” in Iran.

Zarif linked Bolton to the Saudi crown prince, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Abu Dhabi crown prince, saying they are all looking for a pretext to convince Trump to take “crazy and adventurous” actions.

Zarif said this didn’t amount to a crisis yet, but that it was making the situation very dangerous, and that accidents could have unforeseen consequences for both sides.

(antiwar.com)

Bolton has wanted a war with Iran for 25 years…..and now he has a president’s ear….a president that is for all purposes ignorant on the situation…….

Who will win this tug of war?

What Happened?

Closing Thought–24Apr19

Every president especially the poser we have now likes to thump their chest about the military and its possibility of being the best and well equipped. Well it is true that our Army is the best equipped in history…but the problem is…..the basic war skills.

There is a report that tells a tale about our Army squads and their abilities…….

The U.S. Army says it will meet its readiness goals by 2022, but young sergeants in most infantry and close-combat units don’t know how to maneuver their squads or do basic land navigation, Military.com has learned.

For example, sergeants in the majority of the Army’s active brigade combat teams (BCTs) don’t know the importance of gaining a foothold when leading squads on room-clearing operations, according to a series of report cards from the service’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, known as the AWG.

The findings come at a time when the Army is racing to transition from the counter-insurgency mindset that existed in Iraq and Afghanistan to one focused on preparing combat units to fight in large-scale, conventional battles against a foe of equal strength.

Since March 2018, the AWG — a special, operational advisory unit involved in training brigade combat teams in subterranean (Sub-T) warfare operations — has submitted reports to Army leaders on several occasions identifying trends that show small-unit leaders lack proficiency in key skills required for any type of combat, a Defense Department official with knowledge of the reports told Military.com on the condition of anonymity.

 
I am not sure that I agree……I believe that our troops will continue to fight small units in other words an asymmetric war…..so to say that our Army infantry units are unprepared for the future is just not accurate…..I know that I am not privy to classified info on our military….but I just do not see the results the report issued.
 
I think the bigger danger to an all volunteer military is the American people…..

Donald Trump’s three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar defense budget request submitted to Congress last month contains a dirty secret, one that should make us all think twice about perpetual war and public support for it.

The youth of America don’t want to serve in the military any more.

The situation has become so dire that just to maintain America’s ground forces – the army and Marine Corps – the two services are resorting to unprecedented pay raises, bonuses and socialist trappings.

And things are going to get worse. This year, for the first time ever, Americans born after 11 September 2001 will be able to enlist in the armed forces. It’s a sobering reminder both of how long we’ve been at war but also how distant those very wars have become from America’s youth. And yet official military polling shows that fewer and fewer young Americans consider the military as a career or as a transitional step – only some 12.5% – the lowest number in a decade.

 
There is the bigger concern in my book.
 
Turn The Page!