Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[don]

R U Syri-ous

Apparently serious enough . . . .

U.S. to Begin Military Talks With Russia on Syria

By MICHAEL R. GORDONSEPT. 18, 2015

LONDON — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that the United States was prepared to engage in military-to-military talks with Russia concerning Syria.

“The president believes that a mil-to-mil conversation is an important next step,” Mr. Kerry said, “and I think, hopefully, will take place very shortly.”

Shortly after Mr. Kerry spoke, the Pentagon announced that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter had spoken by telephone with Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian minister of defense. It was Mr. Carter’s first discussion with his Russian counterpart since he became defense secretary seven months ago. The two men agreed to continue discussions on “mechanisms for deconfliction” in Syria, Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.

Mr. Cook described the discussion as “constructive” and said the two men had “talked about areas where the United States and Russia’s perspectives overlap, and areas of divergence.”

The initial purpose of the talks with Russia, Mr. Kerry said in London, will be to help “define some of the different options that are available to us as we consider next steps in Syria.”

Mr. Kerry said that the Obama administration would not change its basic goals in Syria: the defeat of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and a political solution for the conflict there.

But though the administration has long said that President Bashar al-Assad must go for there to be a durable solution to the Syria crisis, Mr. Kerry seemed on Friday to allow for the possibility that Mr. Assad might remain in power in the short term. Mr. Assad has had Russia’s backing throughout the conflict.

“Our focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad,” Mr. Kerry said. “But we’re looking for ways in which to try to find a common ground. Clearly, if you’re going to have a political settlement, which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.”

Mr. Kerry made his remarks in London at the start of a meeting with Abdullah bin Zayed, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Kerry also plans to meet on Saturday with the British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, and then will travel to Germany on Sunday for discussions focused mainly on the Syria crisis and the refugee situation in Europe.

Russia has been stepping up its support for Mr. Assad in recent weeks, including deployment of weapons and personnel to an airfield near Latakia, Syria. With Mr. Kerry’s comments on Friday, the Obama administration’s position on the Russian steps has shifted, from objecting vociferously to trying to manage events.

On Sept. 5, Mr. Kerry warned Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, that the Kremlin should not expand its military support for the Syrian government. The Russian buildup, Mr. Kerry said in a telephone conversation with Mr. Lavrov, “could further escalate the conflict” and might even “risk confrontation” with the American-led coalition that is conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, according to a State Department account of the call.

The United States also sought to impede the Russian buildup. Bulgaria closed its airspace to Russian transport planes at the request of the United States. Iraq, however, did not take any action, which has allowed the Russians to keep delivering weapons and equipment to Syria.

Russia made the next diplomatic move. Seeking to rebut Mr. Kerry’s assertion that the Russian deployment could fuel the Syrian conflict, Mr. Lavrov said last week that the Russian military was prepared to coordinate with the Pentagon to avoid “unintended incidents.” He repeated the offer for military-to-military talks in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kerry on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/wo...=top-news&_r=0

[radon]

Re: What do Russia and Iran want ?.

Iran's insistence on isotope separation is strong evidence they want a weapon. If they wanted reactor fuel, I think they could buy it easily.

Plutonium and other good stuff can be extracted from the spent fuel. It doesn't matter whether they made it themselves or purchased it. "Isotope separation" is a red herring.

[radon]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Part of me is beginning to suspect that war footing you mentioned in a previous article is being negotiated. China is taking its brick to the face, and it seems about time for Americans to accept the sacrifices necessary to resolve the debt crisis. The demographic crisis being fostered in Europe will force them to pick a side, and using Ukraine to drive a wedge between Russia an Europe is pretty clever.

On the other hand the dessert is a great place for a full blown proxy war with Eastasia, and it is far enough away to be acceptable to the US and Airstrip One. I guess Eruasia starts out allied with Eastasia for round one with the sectarians fighting in the desert playing the part of useful idiots. The news seems to resemble the onion more and more each day. It would be comic if it wasn't so appalling.

[don]

Demotivating ISIS by Eric Prince

Blackwater founder Erik Prince on how to defeat Islamic State

BY ERIK PRINCE on SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 in AT OPINION, MIDDLE EAST

Erik Prince, the well-known founder of military contractor Blackwater, has been offering advice to current Republican presidential candidates about how the US should respond militarily and geopolitically to the situation on the ground in the Middle East — especially with regard to the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) jihadists.

In this Asia Times exclusive, Prince, who currently heads Frontier Services Group, an Africa-focused security and logistics company, outlines his talking points about what the US-led coalition must do to thwart IS in the region. A pivotal part of the effort, according to the ex-US Navy SEAL, should be focusing conventional military strikes to destroy Dabiq — an obscure Syrian village near the Turkish border that holds a mystical religious significance and serves as rallying point for ISIS recruits.

Dabiq

Erik Prince

Dabiq is increasingly assuming significance amid the conflict raging in the region.

For IS, Dabiq is the village where the world will come to an end in a holy war preordained in the formative days of Islam.

Their dream fight has its origins in one of Prophet Muhammad’s sayings which mentions Dabiq as the scene of a fateful showdown between Christians and Muslims which will be the beginning of the end of the world.

Another prophecy says this final war will start after a truce between Muslims and Christians and it will be fought between puritanical Sunnis and “Persians.”

“The Hour will not be established until the Romans [Christians] land at Dabiq,” the hadith says. “Then an army from Medina of the best people on the earth at that time will leave for them … So they will fight them. Then one third of [the fighters] will flee; Allah will never forgive them. One third will be killed; they will be the best martyrs with Allah. And one third will conquer them; they will never be afflicted with sorrow. Then they will conquer Constantinople.”

Nearly 1,500 years later, waves of young recruits are coming to Dabiq like flies drawn to a lantern or fire. For them, the “Persians” represent not only Iran but also the Alawite regime of Syria and Shia militias who have come to defend them.

What attracts them to this village, besides its mystical religious aura, is Dabiq the glossy recruit magazine published by the IS, besides a monthly online newsletter of the same name that is widely enough read among the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims to cause a worrying stream of recruits.
It is time anti-IS forces find a way to trap and eliminate these marauders before things go out of hand.

ISIS convoy in Syria

One strategy could be positioning US Marines near Dabiq, a bait the IS may find hard to resist thereby starting the “preordained” war.

Let the small American forces be on the defensive for a few months to allow more and more IS militants to pour into the area and then annihilate them with all non-nuclear weapons available.

The final act should be the destruction of Raqqa, the IS Caliphate capital in Syria, like the Dresden bombing in World War II.

Nothing will be more demotivating for aspirant IS recruits than a well-publicized video of the total destruction of their forces in Syria, especially Dabiq.

The act may sound gruesome but those with a medieval mind-set deserve such a pounding so others like them would not dare tread the same bloody path.

While this could be the short-term solution to end the Syrian conflict, the long-term plan is to redraw the map of the Levant.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has already expressed his willingness for a power-sharing deal. So it is time to undo the World War I-era Sykes-Picot agreement drafted by the French and British. That map was drawn to serve their colonial interests and the US must now help in redrawing Levant borders once and for all.

Create a new Kurdistan

A free and independent Kurdistan is the first place to start. The Kurds could unify the northern part of existing Syria all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. Kurds are already halfway there after taking the town of Khobani in Syria.

Nineveh province could become a Christian homeland adjacent to Kurdistan providing a haven for this population.

A unified Sunni nation consisting of western Iraq and eastern Syria is another possibility.

Arming the Kurds and Sunni tribes in their own homelands would help in eliminating the surviving IS jihadis holed up there.

Redraw Lebanon

Lebanon has been a battered state since WWI, enduring a famine induced by the Turks that killed over 200,000 and wars, assassinations and non-stop strife.

Lebanon is effectively a rump state where the Iran-sponsored, heavily armed Hezbollah militia hold sway over an impotent government.

Let the Shia parts of Lebanon go with Assad and the Alawites living along the coast.

This redrawing of the Levant map is necessary for the Middle East. Without that, the world will be dealing with second and third order metastasis from a Caliphate growing stronger every month.

But all this is easier said than done. The ground reality is different.

ISIS capabilities

Islamic State In Syria (ISIS) is an adaptive and formidable foe. They operate smoothly from a two-member team to a 1,000-strong force to achieve the desired results. Although they have no air power, they can hit the targets with great precision.

They also have a world class communications and social media outreach that serves to promote their brand and aid in recruiting.

A recent US drone strike is the first of its kind against an ISIS computer hacker. That the US government needed to take such a step is indicative of IS’ growing capabilities.

They have armored vehicles loaded with explosives and suicide drivers to deliver ordnance on call for their commanders, and prepped vehicles on call for immediate response as the tempo of combat rises.

They see exactly how the US play-book reads, have adapted to it and are largely unfazed by it. They regularly get a good supply of dedicated recruits for whom Syria has become the Super Bowl of Jihad.

The group provides new recruits with training, equipment, income and a steady supply of the spoils of war to fulfill their sickest fantasies.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a serious player and has taken the Al Qaeda business model to the next generation. He is an Islamic scholar who is quite adept at building an organization that governs, recruits and advances its goals.

While Al Qaeda is a dispersed terror organ, ISIS is a terror state with increasingly global reach and holds a large amount of terrain, equipment and ongoing revenue streams ranging from crude oil and kidnapping to extortion.

Their lean structure facilitates rapid decision making and limits the damage caused by an occasional US drone strike.

Despite being aware of the factors that give ISIS its strength, anti-ISIS forces are yet to get their acts together.

Analysis: Syria

It is through a combination of Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) troops that Tehran supports President Bashar Assad directly.
Syria has served as the logistics bridge by which Iran has moved all weaponry into Lebanon over the past 35 years.

Iran’s support for Syria is also linked to Shia solidarity. The Hafez Assad Bath Party Regime took power in 1970 by force. Assad family is Alawite, a sect of Shia Islam.
Alawites represent just 12% of the population and were long persecuted by the majority urban Sunnis.

The Sunnis, in turn, were persecuted for the past 45 years and kept in check by force.

When Hafez Assad died, his son Bashar was living in London as a dentist with his attractive wife. Reluctantly, he returned to Damascus to run the country. Later, he made several efforts in vain to improve his country’s ties with the US.

As the Arab Spring spread to Syria, the Sunnis leapt at the chance to resist.

The Alawite-dominated army backed by Soviet/Russian weapons tried to crush them. They used the conventional power of armor/artillery and carpet bombing, causing carnage and the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

In the ongoing conflict, both sides have suffered casualties. It is estimated that 1 of every 3 Alawite military-age males has been killed in the fighting. For Syria, it is a blood feud without any chance of peaceful resolution so long as IS or other radical Sunni forces exist.

Hence, the immediate need is elimination of IS in Syria and not a regime change there. Assad cannot capitulate because if he leaves or loses, Alawites living in coastal Syria would be slaughtered en masse.

But the solution for Syria is inextricably linked to Iraq.

Analysis: Iraq

Iraq was dominated for decades by another Bath Party member, in this case, a Sunni named Saddam Hussein. His removal caused great hope for the Shia majority in the south, the persecuted Kurds in the north and wariness among the Sunnis in the middle and west of the country.

ISIS captured thousands of US-made humvees from the Iraqi Army when they captured Mosul last year.

Democratic elections in the country were ill-advised as they were bought and paid for by Iran Quds Force money and intimidation throughout the Shia south especially.

The Mahdi Army and Badr Corps became the lead surrogates for Iran among the many Shia militias in Iraq. They quickly became more organized and formidable than the Viet Cong ever were in Vietnam.

They were the tool used to infiltrate and dominate the levers of power in Iraq. They effectively purged Sunnis from Baghdad and from the spectrum of security organizations.

The premature pull-out of US forces unleashed Shia extremism and caused the beleaguered Sunnis of Iraq to make the Faustian bargain to cooperate with IS who promised to protect them from Shia aggression.

When IS rolled into northern Iraq, they captured five heavy divisions of Iraqi army equipment and three major logistics bases stocked with US-made ordnance, supplied and funded by the US taxpayers.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Demotivating ISIS by Eric Prince

Blackwater founder Erik Prince on how to defeat Islamic State

Prince has outlined a plausible scenario, but could one not reasonably expect that the Pentagon has enough deep thinkers to plot equally viable, or possibly even better, strategies? Of course, they wouldn't publish their best ideas in the Asia Times.

[Polish_Silver]

But at what cost?

Plutonium and other good stuff can be extracted from the spent fuel. It doesn't matter whether they made it themselves or purchased it. "Isotope separation" is a red herring.

It is technically possible to extract plutonium from spent fuel. But how practical is it?

Everything I have read indicates that isotope enrichment is by far the biggest barrier to building a nuclear weapon. And, if Iran is buying reactor fuel, the only reason for isotope enrichment would be to build a weapon, so they have no plausible cover story.

What do you think is the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon?

[FrankL]

Re: But at what cost?

It is technically possible to extract plutonium from spent fuel. But how practical is it?

Everything I have read indicates that isotope enrichment is by far the biggest barrier to building a nuclear weapon. And, if Iran is buying reactor fuel, the only reason for isotope enrichment would be to build a weapon, so they have no plausible cover story.

What do you think is the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon?

Buying fuel makes you dependent on the willingness of those that provide it. Look at how Iran already got burned by dependency on systems like SWIFT, that are not supposed to be political instruments.
How much sense does it make to buy fuel when you've got plenty of ore and the technology to enrich it yourself?

[radon]

Re: But at what cost?

But how practical is it?

Very. Fission reactors are by far the largest source of plutonium. Depending on the reactor type it is only a matter of chemical separation. Proliferation concerns are also a large barrier to thorium reactors as they produce U233 which could also be weaponized albeit with some difficulty.

What do you think is the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon?

Building and maintaining the industrial infrastructure necessary to supply the raw materials in a form that is pure enough to guarantee a detonation. This is also why bootstrapping a domestic weapons program is colossally expensive. The physics itself decades old and fairly well known, and even though expertise in this specific area is hard to come by it's not prohibitive with government support.

I guess my point was that if you can buy the fuel you can design and build a reactor that will produce the products you want. Nobody makes bombs using U235 because it is such a poor material. Additionally it would be a colossal waste when you could use it as feedstock for a breeder cycle.

Enrichment isn't the enemy, the reactor is. It's construction and operation needs to be monitored closely if the real concern is proliferation. Worrying about enrichment is silly if you're going to sell them the end product anyway.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: But at what cost?

Buying fuel makes you dependent on the willingness of those that provide it. Look at how Iran already got burned by dependency on systems like SWIFT, that are not supposed to be political instruments.
How much sense does it make to buy fuel when you've got plenty of ore and the technology to enrich it yourself?

It makes sense to buy fuel because the technology is very expensive to develop and use. It will take them years to get where France was in 2000.

Could they not buy a 10 year supply in advance? Has it ever happened that a country was denied reactor fuel?

Beyond all this, if they had no enrichment capability. no one could accuse them of building a nuclear weapon.

If that is not an important consideration, I think they want to be seen as building nuclear weapons. Understandable, given
the century long meddling of the US, USSR, and Britain in the region. I just wish they would come out and say it.

[don]

Re: But at what cost?

Hell-Za-Poppin'

Iranian troops arrive

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.

“The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies,” said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.

“It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside,” the source added.

The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad’s government to rebels.

It points to an emerging military alliance between Russia and Assad’s other main allies – Iran and Hezbollah – focused on recapturing areas of northwestern Syria that were seized by insurgents in rapid advances earlier this year.

“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” the second source said.

Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.

http://atimes.com/2015/10/russia-def...ground-attack/

[don]

Spanish Civil War - 2015 Edition

Back in June, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimaini, visited a town north of Latakia on the frontlines of Syria’s protracted civil war. Following that visit, he promised that Tehran and Damascus were set to unveil a new strategy that would “surprise the world.”

Just a little over a month later, Soleimani - in violation of a UN travel ban - visited Russia and held meetings with The Kremlin. The Pentagon now says those meetings were “very important” in accelerating the timetable for Russia’s involvement in Syria. The General allegedly made another visit to Moscow in September.

The timeline here is no coincidence. Iran has long provided covert and overt support to the Assad regime via financial transfers, logistical support from the Quds, and via the involvement of Hezbollah in the Assad government’s fight to regain control of the country.

As we’ve documented extensively over the past several weeks, what appears to have happened here is that Iran, unable to simply invade Syria in support of Assad (because doing so would obviously be a disaster in terms of preserving the optics around the P5+1 nuclear deal), turned to Moscow which has in the past used Russia’s Security Council veto to block the referral of the war in Syria to the Hague and which is a known ally of both Tehran and Damascus.

While it’s unclear exactly what the pitch was to Putin, Russia clearly saw an opportunity to advance The Kremlin’s geopolitical agenda at a key time in history. Moscow is keen to put on a brave face amid the most contentious standoff with the West since the Cold War (as a result of the conflict in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea) and amid the related effort to preserve Gazprom’s market share in Europe.

In short, Putin looks to have viewed this as the ultimate geopolitical win-win. That is, Russia gets to i) expand its influence in the Middle East in defiance of Washington and its allies, a move that also helps to protect Russian energy interests and preserves the Mediterranean port at Tartus, and ii) support its allies in Tehran and Damascus thus preserving the counterbalance to the US-Saudi-Qatar alliance.

Meanwhile, Iran gets to enjoy the support of the Russian military juggernaut on the way to protecting the delicate regional nexus that is the source of Tehran’s Mid-East influence. It is absolutely critical for Iran to keep Assad in power, as the loss of Syria to the West would effectively cut the supply line between Iran and Hezbollah.

The same dynamic is playing out in Iraq. That is, Iran is fighting ISIS via various Shiite militias just as it’s fighting the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen via the Shia Houthis. It is thus extremely significant that Baghdad has agreed to share intelligence with Syria and Russia, as that effectively means the Iran-backed Shiite militias battling for control of Iraq will enjoy the support of the Russian military.

What should be obvious here is that this is a coordinated plan.

The Kremlin has effectively agreed to bring the might of the Russian air force to bear on Assad’s opponents in Syria and on Sunni militants in Iraq in support of Iranian ground troops and because the US and its allies have failed so miserably in terms of fielding anti-Assad rebels who don't turn out to be extremists, Putin gets to pitch the whole thing as a "war on terror." It would be difficult to design a more elegant power play.

If you think that’s far-fetched, consider the following just out from Reuters:

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.

"The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies," said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.

"It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside," the source added.

The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad's government to rebels.

It points to an emerging military alliance between Russia and Assad's other main allies - Iran and Hezbollah - focused on recapturing areas of northwestern Syria that were seized by insurgents in rapid advances earlier this year.

"The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors ... we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more," the second source said. Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.

And then consider this, also just out (via Reuters):

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it would consider any request from the Iraqi government to conduct air strikes against Islamic State inside Iraq, but said it had not yet received such an appeal, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

It cited the foreign ministry as saying it would evaluate the "political and military" logic of such a move if a request was forthcoming.

Finally, to drive the point home and further confirm the veracity of the thesis outlined above, here’s Saudi Arabia panicking at the prospect that Russia’s presence is set to completely disrupt the Mid-East BOP (via Reuters, yet again):

Saudi Arabia, a leading foe of President Bashar al-Assad, demanded his ally Russia end its raids on Syria, saying the strikes had caused civilian casualties while failing to target the hardline Islamic State militants Moscow says it opposes.

In remarks at the United Nations in New York, a senior Saudi diplomat suggested both Russia and Assad's other main ally Iran could not claim to fight Islamic State "terrorism" at the same time as supporting the "terrorism" of the Syrian authorities.

Saudi ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi expressed "profound concern regarding the military operations which
Russian forces have carried out in Homs and Hama today, places where ISIS forces are not present. These attacks led to a number of innocent victims. We demand it stop immediately and not recur."

"As for those countries that have claimed recently to join in the fight against ISIS terrorism, they can’t do that at the same time as they support the terrorism of the Syrian regime and its terrorist foreign allies like Hezbollah and the Quds Force and other terrorist sectarian groups," he added in comments broadcast by Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television.

ISIS is a common acronym for Islamic State, also known as ISIL. Lebanon's Hezbollah Shi'ite militia openly fights on behalf of Assad's government, and the Quds Force, part of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, is also widely believed to be aiding Damascus.

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of what appears to be going on here. This is nothing short of a Middle Eastern coup, as Iran looks to displace Saudi Arabia as the regional power broker and as Russia looks to supplant the US as the superpower puppet master.

Do not expect Saudi Arabia and Israel to remain on the sidelines here.

If Russia ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities) and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balanace of power that has existed in the region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night.

[shiny!]

Re: Spanish Civil War - 2015 Edition

Back in June, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimaini, visited a town north of Latakia on the frontlines of Syria’s protracted civil war. Following that visit, he promised that Tehran and Damascus were set to unveil a new strategy that would “surprise the world.” ...

What's the source, please?

[Woodsman]

Re: Spanish Civil War - 2015 Edition

ZH, but can't tell who wrote it. No attribution. Here's a source for you:

Exceptional Fact #1: Failure Is Success, or the U.S. Remains the Sole Superpower

If you were to isolate the single most striking, if little discussed, aspect of American foreign policy in the first 15 years of this century, it might be that Washington’s inability to apply its power successfully just about anywhere confirms that very power; in other words, failure is a marker of success. Let me explain.

In the post-9/11 years, American power in various highly militarized forms has been let loose repeatedly across a vast swath of the planet from the Chinese border to deep in Africa -- and nowhere in those 14 years, despite dreams of glory and global dominion, has the U.S. succeeded in any of its strategic goals. That should qualify as exceptional in itself. After all, what are the odds that, in all that time, nothing should turn out as planned or positively by Washington’s standards? It could not win its war in Afghanistan; nor its two wars, one ongoing, in Iraq; nor has it had success in its present one in Syria; it failed to cow Iran; its intervention in Libya proved catastrophic; its various special ops and drone campaigns in Yemen have led to chaos in that country; and so, as novelist Kurt Vonnegut used to say, it goes.

Just another day in the slaughterhouse.

[touchring]

Re: Spanish Civil War - 2015 Edition

ZH, but can't tell who wrote it. No attribution. Here's a source for you:

Just another day in the slaughterhouse.

ISIS grew strong within the year or so while attention was diverted to Ukraine.

Huge price to pay for a couple of gas fields in Ukraine.

http://time.com/2964493/ukraine-joe-...unter-burisma/

[Woodsman]

The Empire Strikes Out

Lawrence Wilkerson: “The Empire is in Deep, Deep Trouble”

Wilkerson describes the path of empires in decline and shows how the US is following the classic trajectory. He contends that the US needs to make a transition to being one of many powers and focus more on strategies of international cooperation.

The video is full of rich historical detail and terrific, if sobering, nuggets, such as:

• History tells us we’re probably finished.
• The rest of of the world is awakening to the fact that the United States is 1) strategically inept and 2) not the power it used to be. And that the trend is to increase that.

Wilkerson includes in his talk not just the way that the US projects power abroad, but internal symptoms of decline, such as concentration of wealth and power, corruption and the disproportionate role of financial interests.

So many great lines in it.

“Empires at the end concentrate on military force as the be all and end all of power… at the end they use more mercenary based forces than citizen based forces”

“Empires at the end…go ethically and morally bankrupt… they end up with bankers and financiers running the empire, sound familiar?”

“So they [empires] will go out for example, when an attack occurs on them by barbarians that kills 3000 of their citizens, mostly because of their negligence, they will go out and kill 300,000 people and spend 3 trillion dollars in order to counter that threat to the status quo. They will then proceed throughout the world to exacerbate that threat by their own actions, sound familiar?…This is what they [empires] do particularly when they are getting ready to collapse”

“This is what empires in decline do, they can’t even in govern themselves”