WARS ABROAD, WARS AT HOME
Special warfare unit was spotted flying a Trump flag
Steve Thompson was on his way to pick up some feed for his goat farm Sunday morning when he noticed an impressive-looking military convoy and started filming. When he neared the lead vehicle in the convoy, the 32-year-old Shepherdsville, Ky., man noticed something else: A large blue and white Trump campaign flag… For some, military personnel publicly endorsing a political candidate exacerbates existing fears about American institutions falling prey to an administration that has been accused of having authoritarian impulses. For others, the flag was little more than a patriotic celebration highlighting the peaceful transfer of power. The Navy has an opinion as well: The display was “unauthorized.” More
GOLDMANIZING DONALD TRUMP:
How a Bank Conquered Washington
Irony isn’t a concept with which President Donald J. Trump is familiar. In his Inaugural Address, having nominated the wealthiest cabinet in American history, he proclaimed, “For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished -- but the people did not share in its wealth.” Under Trump, an even smaller group will flourish -- in particular, a cadre of former Goldman Sachs executives. To put the matter bluntly, two of them (along with the Federal Reserve) are likely tocontrol our economy and financial system in the years to come. Infusing Washington with Goldman alums isn’t exactly an original idea. Three of the last four presidents, including The Donald, have handed the wheel of the U.S. economy to ex-Goldmanites. But in true Trumpian style, after attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman ties, he wasn’t satisfied to do just that. He had to do it bigger and better. Unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, just a sole Goldman figure lording it over economic policy wasn’t enough for him. Only two would do. More
FROM RESISTING TRUMP TO WHAT?
Resistance is breaking out all over: the women’s marches, the immigration airport protests and the defiant Sally Yates, the State Department mass dissents, the battle for the Supreme Court, with much more to come. But where are we going? Are we simply calling for a return to the pre-Trump status quo of runaway inequality, the largest prison population in the world, inadequate and costly health care, unjust immigration policies and accelerating climate change? Or do we have a new vision for America? If so, what is it and how do we fight for it? …"Sooner or later, we should go beyond resistance and advocate a vision for the future ― a common agenda that includes a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street, free higher education, criminal justice reform, humane immigration policies, Medicare for All, an end to outsourcing, fair trade and a guaranteed job at a living wage for all those willing and able." More
CHELSEA E MANNING:
Compromise does not work with our political opponents. When will we learn?
Now, after eight years of attempted compromise and relentless disrespect in return, we are moving into darker times. Healthcare will change for the worse, especially for those of us in need. Criminalization will expand, with bigger prisons filled with penalized bodies – poor, black, brown, queer and trans people. People will probably be targeted because of their religion. Queer and trans people expect to have their rights infringed upon. The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader. More
Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters. The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States… Some proponents of the program fear that rebranding it could make it more difficult for the government to work with Muslims already hesitant to trust the new administration, particularly after Trump issued an executive order last Friday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. More
Decades of Demonization Behind the Ban On Muslims
In a 1990 article in the Atlantic, Professor Bernard Lewis attributed what he styled as the roots of Muslim rage to the envy and resentment that Muslims supposed to feel towards the West because of its scientific and other successes and Muslim decline and backwardness. In one fell swoop he reduced a long, multifaceted, and complex relationship between the West and the Muslim World to simple envy. After the Soviet Union fell and the world faced an ideological and paradigmatic vacuum, Samuel Huntington offered to substitute the theory of a “clash of civilizations,”
which designated Islam as the West’s most hostile “other.” These arguments were advanced before al-Qaeda became a threat and long before the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001… With all this popular and even academic demonization of Muslims (and their forebears, as in Persia) it should be no surprise that President Trump wants to protect America from these evil peoples. What we are seeing is the actualization of the Biblical saying: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. More
which designated Islam as the West’s most hostile “other.” These arguments were advanced before al-Qaeda became a threat and long before the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001… With all this popular and even academic demonization of Muslims (and their forebears, as in Persia) it should be no surprise that President Trump wants to protect America from these evil peoples. What we are seeing is the actualization of the Biblical saying: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. More
Where America's Terrorists Actually Come From
But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. Zero… As for refugees, Nowrasteh writes, Trump’s action “is a response to a phantom menace.” Over the last four decades, 20 out of 3.25 million refugees welcomed to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all by Cuban refugees in the 1970s. Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States… Since 2014, the majority of individuals charged in the United States with ISIS-related offenses have been U.S. citizens (58 percent) or permanent residents (6 percent), according to George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. Additionally, more ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria appear to come from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, and China than any countries included in Trump’s ban. More
INVESTING IN THE MILITARY (AND LITTLE ELSE)
The new administration is reportedly considering a plan -- modeled on proposals from the military-industrial-complex-backed Heritage Foundation -- that would cut a staggering $10.5 trillion in federal spending over the next decade. The Departments of Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and State might see their budgets slashed to the bone; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized; and (though the money involved would amount to chicken feed) the National Endowments for the Arts and for the Humanities would be eliminated altogether… President Trump won’t, of course, be starting from scratch in his urge to further elevate the military in foreign and domestic affairs. He’s building on a process that’s already well under way. In the Obama years, for instance, there were a record number of drone strikes, especially outside official U.S. war zones -- 10 times the number launched by the Bush administration. Similarly, the Obama administration paved the way for various Trumpian urges by waging wars on multiple fronts and instituting a historic crackdown on whistleblowers in the military and the intelligence communities. It also approved record levels of U.S. arms sales abroad, $278 billion worth of them, or more than double those of the Bush years. More
Should We Keep Wasting Money on Missile Defense―or Invest in Something Useful?
Although “Star Wars” was never built, the fantastic dream of a missile shield took hold in Congress, which began to pour billions of dollars into variants of this program. And, today, more than thirty years later, the United States still lacks an effective missile defense system. The U.S. government, however, ignoring this dismal record, continues to lavish vast resources on this unworkable program, which has already cost American taxpayers over $180 billion… A key factor keeping billions of U.S. tax dollars flowing to this ill-conceived project is the desperation of declining American communities, anxious to attract the jobs a GMD installation would provide… But if the only good reason for missile defense is that it provides a jobs program, why not invest those billions of dollars in jobs doing useful things? Why not invest in factories turning out solar and wind power components, high-speed rail cars, and inexpensive medicines? Why not invest in health care clinics, day care centers, libraries, schools, job-training facilities, community centers, concert halls, bridges, roads, inexpensive housing, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes? More
* * * *
NEW WARS / OLD WARS – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
SIGN PETITION SUPPORTING
'Stop Arming Terrorists Act' H.R. 608
United for Peace and Justice has joined with the U.S. Peace Council, Veterans for Peace and several other national peace organizations to initiate a public campaign in support of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-Hawaii) STOP ARMING TERRORISTS ACT (H.R. 608), which she originally introduced to the Congress on December 8, 2016.
H.R. 608 is a bipartisan bill, which has been co-sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-North Carolina), and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida).
The Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.6504) has only 5 co-sponsors, none from Massachusetts
HERE WE GO AGAIN: TRUMP ADMIN THREATENS IRAN
National Security Advisor Mike Flynn came out on Wednesday to make a brief statement putting Iran “on notice.” Flynn complained about Iran’s ballistic missile tests, about a Yemeni Houthi attack on a Saudi naval vessel in the Red Sea (maintaining that it was ‘Iran-backed’) and about “weapons transfers” and “support for terrorism.” The Iranian press pointed out that that the JCPOA or nuclear deal only bans ballistic missiles designed to carry a nuclear warhead, and said that Iran had done no such thing… There was no indication that Flynn had an actual war plan for Iran, and apparently the career Pentagon personnel were livid that Trump would have Flynn announce a major strategy statement on matters of war and peace, but have no specific planning in place. More
Don’t Let Flynn’s Dangerous Fantasies Drive Us To War With Iran
Flynn’s mantra seems to be when in doubt, blame it on Iran. This is a dangerous prejudice at a time when large parts of the Middle East are already at war. As Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group put it, Flynn’s outburst was “either an empty threat or a clear statement of intent to go to war with Iran. Both are reckless and dangerous ... In an attempt to look strong, the administration could stumble into a war that would make the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts look like a walk in the park.” As with Trump’s ill-advised Muslim ban, Flynn’s threat to Iran does not appear to have been seriously discussed with other key players in the administration. It has been reported that Secretary of Defense James Mattis convinced Flynn to “soften” his remarks. If so, it’s hard to imagine how hawkish the “pre-softened” remarks were. As retired general Mark Hertling said on CNN, “This is the kind of thing that brings people to a war footing and this is not good. It is very provocative language.” … The difference between war or bluster may come down to whether military leaders, key Trump cabinet officers and members of Congress of both parties push back against Flynn’s inflammatory rhetoric. And they are more likely to do so if there is a loud, continuous public outcry against the reckless notion of taking military action against Iran. More
Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.
In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September, 2011 drone strike… In a hideous symbol of the bipartisan continuity of U.S. barbarism, Nasser al-Awlaki just lost another one of his young grandchildren to U.S. violence. On Sunday, the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, using armed Reaper drones for cover, carried out a commando raid on what it said was a compound harboring officials of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A statement issued by President Trump lamented the death of an American service member and several others who were wounded, but made no mention of any civilian deaths. U.S. military officials initially denied any civilian deaths, and (therefore) the CNN report on the raid said nothing about any civilians being killed. But reports from Yemen quickly surfaced that 30 people were killed, including 10 women and children. Among the dead: the 8-year-old granddaughter of Nasser al-Awlaki, Nawar, who was also the daughter of Anwar Awlaki. More
If Americans Truly Cared About Muslims, They Would Stop Killing Them by the Millions
In the most dramatic expression of insider opposition to a sitting administration’s policies in generations, over 1,000 U.S. State Department employees signed on to a memo protesting President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries setting foot on U.S. soil. Another recent high point in dissent among the State Department’s 18,000 worldwide employees occurred in June of last year, when 51 diplomats called for U.S. air strikes against the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad… In neither memo is there a word of support for world peace, nor a hint of respect for the national sovereignty of other peoples -- which is probably appropriate, since these are not, and never have been, “core American and constitutional values.” “The diplomatic ‘rebellion’ of last summer sought to pressure the Obama administration to join with Hillary Clinton and her ‘Big Tent’ full of war hawks to confront Russia in the skies over Syria.” More
How Trump Could Blunder Into War with China
There is no question that China has been aggressive about claiming sovereignty over small islands and reefs in the South China Sea, even after the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague rejected Beijing’s claims. But if a military confrontation is to be avoided, it’s important to try to understand what’s behind China’s behavior… China is particularly vulnerable to a naval blockade. Some 80 percent of its energy supplies traverse the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, moving through narrow choke points like the Malacca Straits between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Bab al Mandab Straits controlling the Red Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. All of those passages are controlled by the U.S. or countries like India and Indonesia with close ties to Washington… The U.S. has some 400 military bases surrounding China and is deploying anti-ballistic missiles in South Korea and Japan, ostensibly to guard against North Korean nuclear weapons. But the interceptors could also down Chinese missiles, posing a threat to Beijing’s nuclear deterrence. More
The Liberal, Postwar ‘Order’ Is Dying—and That’s a Good Thing
American triumphalism coincided with the dramatic emergence of numerous non-Western poles of power, notably China, Russia, India, and Iran. The history that had (again, supposedly) just ended turned out to be turning its wheel, as anyone with an understanding of how the world works could have foreseen. As a defining feature of the 21st century, this was inevitable, in my view. Not to be missed is the extent to which Washington’s persistent hubris and intolerance has come to turn natural affinities into economic and, vaguely for the time being, even strategic alliances: Russia-China, Russia-Iran, China-Iran, and so on. China’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is frontally intended as a reply to the TPP, just as the Beijing-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is a response to the conditionality embedded in the multilaterals’ country programs… Dropping “regime change” as an established policy option would, by itself, take Trump in the right direction. Nobody other than Israel, Britain, and sometimes France has any taste for it and the incessant manufacture of disorder that goes with it. Various nations, not least Russia and China, are required to worry that they may be next. This is one reason Ukraine and Syria are historically significant: Russia has put Washington on notice that there will be no more coups without vigorous military responses. Is the new president listening as the rest of the world speaks? More
STEPHEN WALT: Trump Has Already Blown It
Surveys consistently showed a sizable percentage of the American people wanted less military interventionism, less allied free-riding, and were skeptical of global economic arrangements whose benefits seemed to go to Wall Street more than Main Street. Had Trump proceeded smartly, the path to a more restrained and effective foreign policy was open. In particular, Trump could have reaffirmed his opposition to military interventions and “nation-building,” and begun to wind down the far-flung and increasingly open-ended campaign of drone strikes and targeted killings that has done little to reduce what was already a very modest danger from terrorism. He could have concluded that staying in Afghanistan was a losing proposition and begun a carefully phased disengagement… Some of Trump’s supporters may have flocked to him because they were tired of the failed strategy of liberal hegemony and worried that Hillary Clinton and her team were going to repeat the same mistakes that Obama, Bush, or her husband made. If so, it’s increasingly clear they aren’t going to get the smart and more restrained approach to the world they were hoping for. By that standard, in short, Donald J. Trump is already a failure. More
