Tag: Nation Building

It’s That Regime Change Thing Again

****A bit late with so much happening this draft was moved around until a more appropriate time was found.****

At the SOTU speech brought his butt buddy Guido (yes I know that is not his name) and made sure that he got his moment in the light for Venezuela will be the next attempt at regime change….or as I call it….a colossal waste of money and people….

We Americans seem to always think that we can build a better nation for other people….and most times it is always a failure…..

Forcible regime change, or using military force to overthrow a foreign government, can be enticing when a regime appears to be threatening U.S. security. The logic is that when a regime continues to work against U.S. interests, replacing the regime can be a quick and easy way to change this pattern rather than sustained military action or diplomatic negotiation.

The problem, however, is that a resounding amount of research has shown that regime change rarely succeeds. Regardless of the goal, regime change mostly fails to produce better economic conditions, build lasting democracy or promote more stable relations to advance U.S. interests. From Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the 1910s, to South Vietnam in the 1960s, to Iraq in the 2000s, the United States failed to achieve these goals over 110 years of regime-change missions.

And when regime change does not achieve these goals, it can provoke a civil war — as it did in Congo following the regime change mission in Léopoldville (now Kinshasa) in 1960 to oust Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba — degrade respect for human rights and create more instability. Worse, rather than being a quick and easy policy success, the instability created after a regime is deposed often leads to lengthy nation-building projects that policymakers never intended.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/regime-change-rarely-succeeds-when-will-us-learn

It is like a forced conversion….seldom has a lasting effect or belief…

By far the dumbest thing that Americans tend to believe is the successes of regime change……

By far the dumbest thing in all of US politics is the fact that Democrats tend to support regime change in Syria, while Republicans tend to support it more in Iran. I am not talking about the elected officials in those parties; I’m talking about the ordinary rank-and-file Joes and Janets who stand absolutely nothing to gain from toppling either Damascus or Tehran, but who have been brainwashed by lifelong media consumption into supporting one or the other anyway.

Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to replace the leadership of Tehran with a compliant puppet regime, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to spend the rest of my time online arguing with Trump supporters and lifelong Republicans. Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to do the same in Syria, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to be arguing predominantly with so-called centrist liberals.

At no time has this ever failed to occur.

View at Medium.com

The whole idea of regime change is just plain silly and at best a damn LIE.

The United States has, at various times in its history, used military force to promote regime change around the world in pursuit of its interests. In recent years, however, there has been a growing scholarly consensus that these foreign regime‐​change operations are often ineffective and produce deleterious side effects. Whether trying to achieve political, security, economic, or humanitarian goals, scholars have found that regime‐​change missions do not succeed as envisioned. Instead, they are likely to spark civil wars, lead to lower levels of democracy, increase repression, and in the end, draw the foreign intervener into lengthy nation‐​building projects.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/more-things-change-more-they-stay-same

But yet both parties champion one or the other…..and never half to pay for being a dismal failure.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Iraqi Debate

Once again the old debate on whether the invasion and then occupation of Iraq in 2003 was worth the cost…..plus the reason for the invasion in the first place…..

The debate returns because of a report that has been published……

As Iraqis mark 16 years since the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq on 20 March, the US Army has recently made public a long-awaited Iraq war study.

The study, though ready for release in 2016, had been delayed due to concerns over airing “dirty laundry” about decisions made by some of its leaders during the conflict.

The 1,300-page, two-volume history, which includes hundreds of declassified documents, highlights both the mistakes and successes of the US involvement in Iraq, from the 2003 invasion to the rise of the Islamic State (IS). It is a detailed testimony of the impact of the Iraq war on that nation and the entire Middle East. 

As someone with Iraqi origins, reading the entire two-volume history was an emotional journey – a painful testimony to the vicissitudes that have ravaged Iraq since 2003. Reading it as a historian, on the other hand, was gratifying, as it vindicates the value of the discipline of history.

https://middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-military-has-written-book-iraq-war-its-too-late
 
Why did the US invade?  Oil, WMDs or democracy?
 

Sixteen years after the United States invaded Iraq and left a trail of destruction and chaos in the country and the region, one aspect of the war remains criminally underexamined: why was it fought in the first place? What did the Bush administration hope to get out of the war?

The official, and widely-accepted, story remains that Washington was motivated by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme. His nuclear capabilities, especially, were deemed sufficiently alarming to incite the war. As then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Despite Saddam not having an active WMD programme, this explanation has found support among some International Relations scholars, who say that while the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, it was sincerely wrong. Intelligence is a complicated, murky enterprise, the argument goes, and given the foreboding shadow of the 9/11 attacks, the US government reasonably, if tragically, misread the evidence on the dangers Saddam posed.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/20/why-did-bush-go-war-iraq-answer-more-sinister-you-think

Of course we can always find someone who will justify the invasion and I will post them as I find them…..

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. When Donald Trump condemned the war during the 2015 primary campaign and claimed that if Saddam was still in power we “wouldn’t have the problems you have right now,“ I believed he was dead wrong. As I argued then, from the moment Hussein took power until he was deposed in 2003, there were few greater instruments of instability in the world than Saddam Hussein.

Before he was allegedly “contained” by constant, substantial American military deployments, he invaded his neighbors, gassed his people, harbored and supported terrorists, and was responsible for not one but two of the largest conventional military conflicts since World War II — the horrific Iran–Iraq war and Operation Desert Storm. Even after American containment efforts attempted to lock into place and limit his malign reach, he was a prime supporter of a deadly Palestinian suicide-bombing campaign that caused proportionately more Israeli civilian casualties than American civilians lost on 9/11, he tried to assassinate an American president — George H. W. Bush — and he routinely fired on American pilots enforcing lawful no-fly zones. He violated the Gulf War cease-fire accords, interfered with weapons inspections, and hid away chemical weapons by the thousands. No, his WMD program wasn’t nearly as extensive as we thought, but it is fiction to believe his weapons were entirely gone. Americans were injured by Saddam’s chemicals during the war.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iraq-war-just-cause-saddam-hussein-threat-stability/

I am watching and listening to the talking heads on the Tube….most are asking how did we get this so wrong?  A silly question!

These are the people that went before the nation and sold the public on a lie and Americans die.  They want to appear as if their hands are clean when in reality theirs are drenched in blood!

AS we recognize the 16th anniversary of the invasion we are still having the same excuses for the invasion…..none can be justified in my mind….but keep trying maybe they will hit on something that will resonate with me.

Peace Out!

Iran: Another Regime Change?

Meddling in Iran would be NOTHING new for the US it did so in the 1950’s and that move helped bring about the 1979 revolution that the US is still reeling from….why not try it again to see if we can get it right this time?  (sarcasm)

Now that the Iran nuke deal is history could there be other “deals” in the shadows waiting for the light of day?

But there may be no need for an attack on Iran….

Against the backdrop of cosmetic military strikes against the brutal Syrian regime, a close ally of Tehran, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has been touring Western countries warning about the dangers of Iranian expansionism.

As dangerous as this may be, an even greater danger would be an escalation against Iran which could lead to war—a conflict that would be several times deadlier than our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president seems inclined to leave the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and could even be considering strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, as his new National Security Advisor John Bolton once advocated, such actions would be counter-productive to U.S. interests. If the goal is to push back on Iran’s attempt to expand its influence across the Middle East, all the United States has to do is let events unfold.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/08/theres_no_need_to_attack_a_declining_iran_113423.html

And yet the song continues for the US to do something militarily.

The war mongers like Tom Cotton, John Bolton and Pompeo have been slobbering over the chance to attack Iran for decades….let’s star with a look at Bolton and one of his predictions….

In July of last year neoconservative death cultist John Bolton, now the National Security Advisor of the United States, gave a speech at the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran in which he openly called for regime change in Tehran.

…….

Bolton, who is so stupid, crazy and evil that he remains one of the only high-profile individuals on this planet who still insists that the Iraq invasion was a great idea, spoke about the need to prevent the Iranian government from achieving “an arc of control” through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. He decried the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), claiming that Iran was still a nuclear threat under the existing agreement, and spoke glowingly of aggressive sanctions against Tehran. He concluded his speech with the following statement:

http://theantimedia.com/john-bolton-promised-regime-change-iran-before-2019/

Recently some papers about an Iran regime change came to light through a leak……

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.

http://theantimedia.com/white-house-planning-regime-change-iran/

Well leg us say that the prediction did not materialize is it possible that a military coup could take place in Iran?

Since the beginning of the year, Iran has witnessed persistent protests. In January, massive demonstrations against the government spread to more than 80 cities in 29 provinces in which at least in 21 people were killed. In early February, dozens of women were arrested for taking off their head scarves and protesting against mandatory veiling in Tehran.

Later the same month, police clashed with members of the Gonabadi Sufi order, which led to five deaths, according to Gonabadi activists, and hundreds arrested. In late March, Arabs staged protests in Khuzestan province after a the national TV excluded their community from a programme about Iran’s ethnic diversity. Then in April, the security forces cracked down on water shortage protests in Isfahan province. Labour strikes in various cities across the country have also persisted.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/military-coup-iran-180424144510759.html

It appears that something is in the wind for Iran….but what?

The US Can No Longer Afford War!

The War on Terror has costs the nation about $2 trillion (yes that is a “T” for trillion)……chasing terrorists around the world has lead to adventurism by the US on every continent of the globe.

It is getting out of hand….but that does not stop these war hawks for demanding more and more money to fight wars we do not need.  Time to think outside of the Conflict box…..

According to the CBO, fiscal reality is coming, and far faster than most Washington policymakers appear to realize.

Republican presidents and Congresses claim to support fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Yet the previous GOP president, George W. Bush, was a wild spender. The Republican-controlled Congress that served alongside him was no better.

So too it looks to be the case with President Donald Trump and the current GOP-dominated legislative branch. The former doesn’t want to touch entitlements. The latter doesn’t like the big cuts President Trump proposed in discretionary outlays in areas such as the State Department. And most of the Republicans are clamoring to fill the Pentagon’s coffers: the only question is how much, how quickly.

Source: America Literally Can’t Afford More Military Adventurism | RealClearWorld

It is your money they are spending on all these wars…is it not about time that you let your feelings be known?

I mean according to studies most Americans are in fear of a major war in the future…..

on-stop smaller wars, and officials always playing up the risk of bigger wars to get bigger military budgets have always had Americans worried about a new major war being on the horizon, but the latest NBC/SurveyMonkey poll shows that such fears have been growing dramatically in recent months.

This new poll showed an overwhelming majority, 76% of Americans, are now worried that the US will get drawn into a new “major war” in the next four years. This is an increase of 10% over the last time the question was asked, in mid-February.

As far as who the US might get into that major war with, the plurality went to North Korea, with 41% of Americans believing that the isolated nation is the “greatest immediate threat” to the US. ISIS was second at 28%, Russia at 18%, with China and Iran rounding out the top 5.

(antiwar.com)

I am for a more diplomatic approach over a military force one…..but that is a dream that will not be possible as long as we have an anti-diplomacy president…..diplomacy is much cheaper than force…..

Iraq: The War To End A War

The last “big” story out of Iraq was that the Iraqi military has called the battle for Mosul as won….that all that is left of ISIS is some wandering bands of fighters looking for leadership……

If indeed ISIS is defeated then we should expect a peace to now prevail, right?

Only an uneducated dolt would think that the conflict in Iraq is coming to an end.  Believe me there is a wealth of uneducated “experts” when it comes to foreign policy.

Now we wait to see if Iraq can win the peace……or an op-ed in USA Today is saying……

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi waved his national flag in a devastated Mosul last week and with good reason. He was celebrating the hard-fought victory of his U.S.-supported troops over the stubborn Islamic State terrorists who held Iraq’s third-largest city for more than three years. But Abadi was candid about the challenge going forward: “We have another mission ahead of us — to create stability.”

Source: Winning the peace in Mosul

Stability?  Really?  Sounds like spin to me.

ISIS has been routed from the Iraqi city of Mosul. Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi has declared that this signals “the end and the failure and the collapse” of ISIS.

But according to two Iraq War veterans writing in a paper published by the Small Wars Journal in April, the victory in Mosul will be short-lived.

Source: Iraq War Veterans Warn: Mosul Victory Is Prelude to Iraqi State Failure | Alternet

September will be the start of the after conflict conflict…..why September?

That is when the Kurds have scheduled a vote of an independence referendum.

Depending on the outcome…I do not see that as an event that will bring peace.

This has the possibility of becoming uglier and a lot more messy before there is an end to these hostilities.

As Always…. Assad Must Go!

Before I talk about Syria….I need to update a post from lat week.

I reported that an American soldier was killed in action in the East African nation of Somalia….at the time of my post his name had not been released…it has now been reported and I need to rectify my oversight……

SEAL Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator, Kyle Milliken, holder of 4 Bronze Stars, was killed in Somalia.

I have studied and worked in the Middle East for decades…..so this subject always gets me to laughing….why?  Usually it is mouthed by someone that has NO idea what they are talking about and now with this new admin at the helm it is even worse.

Assad must go has been the rallying cry since the days of his father….and it has not calmed down for decades and yet the Assad family is still doing what they have always done….control Syria.

Personally that slogan is getting tired….very tired.

I have writing about this “situation” for some time and in doing so I have laid out why I think it is a moronic slogan that needs to be retired…..but check it…

Source: Assad: Should He Go Or Should He Stay? – In Saner Thought

Source: “Assad Must GO!” – In Saner Thought

And now we have a new president and he has little experience with the Middle East except for the Saudis which he massages their nether regions for business…..and yet he has the same goal as his predecessors……Assad Must Go!

As the Trump administration nears its 100th day in office, it has taken much-needed steps internationally, particularly in Syria.  But while the latest U.S. military action retaliating for the gassing of Khan Sheikoun was long overdue, even more can be done.

With over 400,000 deaths, five million registered Syrian refugees, and the continuation of Assad’s scorched-earth tactics, Syria will not become an island of stability any time soon, and especially after ISIS is ousted from its Raqqa stronghold.  Rather, Syria will remain polarized, politicized, and perilous unless Assad and his enablers are removed from power.

Source: Why the Trump Doctrine Dictates Assad Must Go | RealClearDefense

There it is……”Syria will remain polarized, politicized, and perilous unless Assad and his enablers are removed from power”…….in essence….Assad must go.

Like I said a great slogan…..let’s say he, Assad,  goes…….who will replace him in seat of power?  No!  Seriously!  WHO?

Keep in mind Iraq……we have done a bang up job with that regime change….and we had lackeys waiting in the wings to jump into the power vacuum…..

Name one person…a Syrian person that could step into the role as national leader.

(Pause here for thought)

That is right…there is NO strong democrat in the wings waiting to assume the role of national leader.

Maybe the old stand by slogan, Assad Must Go, needs to be retired until there is someone to fill the void created by his ousting.

For once…please think long term and now this short term solution that inevitably will come back and bite the US in the butt.

The Mother Of Intervention

The US has been in the intervention business for many years and it only gets worse with each passing year.  But the problem is that this country has learned very little with each intervention……and we blunder off into yet another quagmire.

There are some simple rules for intervention and I mean a successful intervention….something the US has yet to master.

These rules were recently published in the American Conservative…….

After trillions of dollars spent, thousands of dead and wounded, and the creation of myriad new terrorist enemies, Washington could learn a few lessons when considering future interventions.

1. Do not attempt to establish multi-ethnic democracies in nations with no traditions of limited government. Each faction believes that “an alien master is worst of all” and dreads the certain prospect of total subordination to the election victors. Do not foster electoral ceremonies where freedom from fear and the rule of law are absent: they beget, at best, the democratic centralism of Lenin. Never propagate civil wars: the revenge killings last for a hundred years.

Read on…..

Source: 17 Rules for Foreign Interventions | The American Conservative

These are some simple rules that should be taught at the War College…after all it is they that carry out all the orders to intervene….

What is it that Einstein had to say about doing things?

Syria: Another Regime Change?

Since the gas attack and the subsequent missile attack the chants of “Assad must go” have amplified….and the ever popular….”Assad’s days are numbered”…these are nothing more than cute slogans and one liners…..

I tried to give my reader my take on what “regime change” would look like for Syria…….

Source: What’s The Syrian Endgame? – In Saner Thought

Let’s say that we have success with a Syrian regime change….(wait!  I need to stop laughing)…..really….what are the options that the “leaders” are considering for this mythical regime change?

Beyond the narrow justification of these strikes as being necessary to reinforce an eroding international norm against the use of chemical weapons, this U.S. military intervention has resurfaced questions concerning the ultimate strategy that the Trump Administration is pursuing in Syria.  Before the strikes, senior administration officials including Secretary of State (SecState) Rex Tillerson and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Halley suggested that U.S. policy would abandon even the pretense of President Barack Obama’s objective of ousting Assad from power in Damascus[3].  However, in the aftermath of the strikes, the Trump Administration signaled an apparent about-face as National Security Advisor (NSA) Herbert Raymond “H. R.” McMaster declared that U.S. policy in Syria would “simultaneously” pursue the twin goals of destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and removing Assad[4].  While the fight against ISIS is making significant progress, the administration has not yet articulated a detailed strategy for pursuing the ouster of Assad.  There are two broad options available:

Source: U.S. Options for Regime Change in Syria | RealClearDefense

Sorry but I may offer an opinion neither of these two options will hold the key to a successful regime change.

Look at Iraq…..that alone should deter these toads from either of the two options….In the post referenced above from IST I set forth what the future of Syria will look like.

I wish I could be more optimistic, you see I have lived in Syria many years ago and I liked the country and the people, there is not much left in the country for a successful transition to democracy.

I am positive that Syria can bounce back from this Hell….but not so with the way the US is approaching the problem…..and for now that is all there is….

The Fallacy of ‘Regime Change’ Strategies

You would think that the US would have learned their lesson with regime change…….Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria……none have gone according to plan and never will.

I wrote an article awhile back along these lines…..

The end result of this conflict in Syria is two-fold….one to rid the landscape of ISIS and two to rid the country of Assad, a regime change….. I understand the urgency of the defeat of …

Source: The Problem With Regime Change – In Saner Thought

The problem is that we keep using the same tactics over and over…tactics that worked in the 1950’s but today they are a waste of time……

“Regime change” or destabilizing sanctions are Official Washington’s policy options of choice in dealing with disfavored nations, but these aggressive strategies have proved harmful and counterproductive, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

Many variables are involved in the messy predicaments in the Middle East, but one way of framing the history and issues of U.S. policy toward the region is in terms of the approaches that have been taken toward so-called rogue regimes. That term, one should hasten to add, obscures more than it enlightens. But it has been in general use for a long time. Take it as shorthand to refer to regimes that have come to be considered especially troublesome and are subjected to some degree of ostracism and punishment.

Three basic approaches are available in formulating policy toward such a regime: (1) keep ostracizing and punishing it in perpetuity; (2) try to change the regime; or (3) negotiate and do business with it, to constrain it and to influence its actions. There are some contradictions between the approaches. Any regime that is led to believe that it is going to be overturned anyway, or that it will be perpetually punished anyway, lacks incentive to make concessions in a negotiation.

Source: The Fallacy of ‘Regime Change’ Strategies – Consortiumnews

How long will the idiots keep using flawed intel and a bigger flawed tactic before we realize that regime change is not our forte?

This election as important as it is holds NO answers to the problems we face….just more years of the status quo.

Stupidity….and that’s the name of that tune!