Land Destroyer

US Navy\’s Own Report Indicates Washington is Looking for a Pacific Fight

February 27, 2017 ( Ulson Gunnar – NEO ) – The Pacific Ocean is large. Since World War II, weapon systems operating in this theater have required special provisions regarding extensive range, long duration performance and relative self-sufficiency during operations.

From America\’s Gato-class submarines and PBY Catalina flying boats used to fight the Japanese and reassert American hegemony across Asia-Pacific during WWII, to America\’s continued presence in Japan, South Korea and islands throughout the region, it is clear the lengths the US has gone through then and now to remain “engaged” in the Pacific. More recently, a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), commissioned by the US Navy titled, ” Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy ,” obsesses over not how to defend American shores, but how to remain involved in Asia-Pacific despite the immense distances between there, and America. The report\’s introduction includes:

Great power competitors such as China and Russia increased their military capabilities over the last two decades and now appear willing to challenge the international order.

However, the report never addresses Chinese or Russian forces landing on American shores, or even threatening to do so. Rather, the report revolves around maintaining hegemony within spheres of influence much more appropriately (and likely inevitably) Chinese or Russian. The report coins a term, “deny-and-punish” to describe the use of US power abroad to “stop aggression,” not in defense of America itself, but in “adjacent theaters.” Ironically, the report cites Iraq as an example, a nation the US, not China nor Russia, invaded, occupied and destroyed with considerable, unchallenged “aggression.” A more specific point in the 162-page report picked out by The National Interest in an article titled, ” How to Guarantee America\’s Aircraft Carriers Can Fight China in a War ,” involves long-range air sorties of up to 2,000 miles. The article elaborates:

…a 2000-mile mission would strain human endurance and an unrefueled range of more than 10 hours would require an enormous aircraft that might not fit on a carrier flight deck. Thus, the CSBA proposal calls for a smaller aircraft that would be supported by a tanker.

In other words, in order for the US to project considerable force beyond its own borders, across the Pacific Ocean, and within China\’s logical, proximal sphere of influence, it needs not only drone aircraft capable of 10 hour sorties, it needs drone tankers to refuel them.

Defense contractors surely welcome the report\’s findings, since it will require the development of not one new aircraft carrier-based vehicle, but two, including the tanker. The CSBA report concludes by stating:

To be deterred in the 2030s, aggressors must be presented with the possibility that their goals will be denied or that the immediate costs to pursue them will be prohibitively high.

In reality, the “aggression” the United States fears is not the unjust encroachment on other, innocent nations, but rather the undoing of every aspect of its own global order, put together piece by piece through just such aggression. It is an order constructed not within any rational US sphere of influence, rather, one spanning the globe, so far from American shores combat pilots lack the endurance to fly the sorties required to “deter” other nations from reversing America\’s grip upon it.

Human Rights Watch Cites Al Qaeda and Collaborators in Latest Syria Report

February 26, 2017 ( Tony Cartalucci – NEO ) – On the heels of Amnesty International\’s admittedly and entirely fabricated report regarding Syria\’s Saydnaya prison , Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published its own baseless report on Syria – this one regarding alleged chlorine bomb attacks in Aleppo during the city\’s liberation late last year.

In a post on HRW\’s website titled, ” Syria: Coordinated Chemical Attacks on Aleppo ,” it claims:

Syrian government forces conducted coordinated chemical attacks in opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo during the final month of the battle for the city, Human Rights Watch said today.

However, when qualifying HRW\’s accusations, it admits:

Through phone and in-person interviews with witnesses and analysis of video footage, photographs, and posts on social media, Human Rights Watch documented government helicopters dropping chlorine in residential areas on at least eight occasions between November 17 and December 13, 2016. The attacks, some of which included multiple munitions, killed at least nine civilians, including four children, and injured around 200.

Watching the videos and viewing the photographs reveals that none of them actually link any of the alleged “chlorine attacks” to Syrian forces, or even to chlorine itself. The body of evidence presented by HRW also reveals that the interviews they conducted with alleged “witnesses” included almost exclusively opposition forces. Among them were the US-UK funded White Helmets – referred to disingenuously as “Syria Civil Defense” in HRW\’s report – who served as designated terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra auxiliaries, often found on the battlefield shoulder-to-shoulder with armed militants.

Image: “Syria Civil Defense,” interviewed by Human Rights Watch, hoisting Al Qaeda\’s flag amid a gang of heavily armed terrorists.

United Arab Emirate-based Al Nusra propaganda platform “Orient News” was also cited, as were other notorious anti-government propaganda networks including the Aleppo Media Center. Not only are these clearly compromised sources of information based on their admitted political alignments, but also because of their respective, systematic fabrications throughout the Syrian conflict. It is telling of HRW\’s systematic bias that it would base an entire report on compromised sources drawn from the opposition, but not even a single report based on government claims. In reality, a truly reputable rights advocacy organization would only report what physical evidence was verified. Human Rights Watch has deliberately avoided doing so not only in Syria, but amid virtually ever conflict it involves itself in. Citing Terrorists and Verified Liars From conflating the number of civilians “trapped” in eastern Aleppo, to attempts to downplay or dismiss the role designated terrorist organizations played in the occupation of Aleppo, the groups and individuals cited by Human Rights have practiced deliberate deceit throughout the battle for Aleppo, and the Syrian conflict at large.

US War on Islamic State Designed to Fail

February 24, 2017 ( Ulson Gunnar – NEO ) – Any US general providing candid views on fighting and winning a war admit the impossibility of victory as long as the source of an enemy\’s fighting capacity remains intact.

In fact, as an excuse for why the US is still struggling in Afghanistan over a decade and a half after initially invading the Central Asian state in 2001, US General John Nicholson blamed outsiders including Pakistan, Iran and Russia for aiding, abetting and harboring anti-US forces. No amount of military might brought to bear on forces fighting the US within Afghanistan\’s borders can disrupt finances, recruitment, training, weapon supplies, logistics and refitting taking place beyond Afghanistan\’s borders and thus beyond the US military\’s reach. The United States suffered a similar problem during its prolonged occupation of Vietnam. North Vietnam, China and neighboring states provided support and safe havens for fighters in the south facing off against US troops and their South Vietnamese counterparts.

Despite killing up to 4 million people and dropping more ordnance on the region than had been dropped during the entirety of World War 2, the US ultimately failed to defeat North Vietnam or prevent the reunification and independence of the Vietnamese people.
Despite both a historical and contemporary example of futile warfare fought out of reach of the source of an enemy\’s fighting capacity, the US is presenting to the American public a “plan” to fight and defeat the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria completely ignoring the terrorist front\’s state sponsors.
The “Plan” To Defeat the Islamic State The plan includes a possible expansion of US troops already operating illegally and uninvited in Syria. In the Guardian\’s article, ” US military will retain core strategy against Isis as Trump mulls escalation ,” it states:

[US General Joseph] Votel, speaking from Jordan on Wednesday, said that one option to speed up a long-signaled attack on Raqqa was to take on a larger burden ourselves . Shouldering more of the task would mean US forces, conventional as well as special operations, bringing more artillery and logistics options to the fight.

Absent from US President Donald Trump\’s “plan,” and from comments made by US commanders, is any mention of the source of the Islamic State\’s fighting capacity. No mention is made as to where they are drawing their fighters from, who is paying for and overseeing their training, arming, outfitting and continuous supplying of when finally they reach the battlefield, or how they have managed to fight the summation of Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese and Russian forces for years now.

Unlike in Vietnam and Afghanistan, two theaters the US desperately sought or seeks victory over indigenous resistance and had openly and repeatedly accused neighboring states of aiding and abetting that resistance, the US has been strangely quiet during both President Barack Obama\’s and now President Trump\’s administrations regarding neighboring states aiding and abetting the Islamic State. However, without addressing the very source of the Islamic State\’s fighting capacity, defeating the terrorist front will be difficult if not impossible.

How Breitbart Got Conservatives to Forget Morality and Embrace Pedophilia

February 23, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – Breitbart News is what many on the right side of America\’s controlled political paradigm consider “real news” versus the “liberal media\’s” “fake news.” However, in reality, Breitbart is a textbook case of what is called “cognitive infiltration.” It is the establishment\’s attempt to reassert itself, its narratives, influence, and agenda amid an information space increasingly decentralized and controlled by genuine alternative media.

In order to do this, Breitbart poses as “alternative media” itself, taking on a “conservative” identity to draw in many on the right of American politics. Cognitive infiltrators also target left-leaning Americans. And it has worked masterfully.

It is an amazing feat by the establishment to have first – under the administration of US President Barack Obama – gotten liberals to embrace endless wars of aggression, and now to convince conservatives to defend advocates of child rape and the act of child rape itself.

The basic facts of what Breitbart really is, versus what it claims to be, expose this clearly. While it poses as anti-establishment “alternative media,” it peddles wars and other aspects of the establishment\’s agenda. It is also working diligently to divide and distract their audience, pitting them against other Americans rather than exposing and targeting the special interests who dominate over them all. Agents of Division and Conquest Enter Milo Yiannopoulos, who just recently resigned as a Breitbart News senior editor. He was an obvious provocateur, aiming clearly at dividing and distracting Americans from real issues. He made provocative comments targeting various groups in his and Breitbart\’s efforts to further polarize the American people and lend greater leverage and control to the corporate-financier interests that truly dominate American politics. In his bid to further polarize the American people between “left” and “right,” he characterized the left as condoning and defending pedophilia. In a 2016 article written by Yiannopoulos and published by Breitbart titled, ” Here\’s Why the Progressive Left Keeps Sticking up for Pedophiles ,” he argues:

Today, Salon gave a platform to a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms. I m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster reads the headline. It s a long, self-pitying screed that ends with a call to be understanding and supportive of adults who crave sexual intimacy with children.

Forgive me if I m not first to start the standing ovation. In fact I m pretty sure most people will find the existence on Salon s website of this post both shocking and distasteful.

Yiannopoulos continues by saying:

…progressives who got fired up about whether green and purple was a rapey colour scheme were suddenly fine with discussion of incestuous pedophilia from a 22-year-old in a chat room full of teenagers. It has been a somewhat grotesque spectacle to watch.

He concludes by claiming:

Radical leftists may be planning to make pedophilia another front in their civil rights battles, but it won t happen without a fight. Nor should it.

In the minds of many reading Breitbart News, they envision the American left as advocates of predators who seek to sexually abuse their children. And in many cases, the establishment “left” are just that. But as it turns out, so is the establishment “right.” Yiannopoulos Himself Advocated Sex with Children Clearly the act Yiannopoulos put on during his role as agitator at Breitbart diverges significantly from who he really is and what he really stands for. In an interview with Yiannopoulos on the ” Drunken Peasants Podcast posted on January 4, 2016 , he unequivocally defends grown men having sex with children as young as 13 and claims that pedophilia is only a sexual attraction to a child who has not reached puberty yet. However, regardless of Yiannopoulos\’ opinions on the matter, adults having sex with 13 year old children is most certainly pedophilia.

Clearly, the real Yiannopoulos has nothing to do with the values many who call themselves conservatives, or “right” of the American political spectrum identity with. Clearly, upon watching Yiannopoulos\’ full interview, no “conservative” or “right-wing” American could support or agree with Yiannopoulos or find him anything less than precisely what they allegedly stand against. Yet here is where the system\’s cognitive infiltration has worked so masterfully.

National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex\’ Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 ( Tony Cartalucci – NEO ) – It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, ” Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser ,” would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will – verbatim – repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise – and have devised for decades – US-European foreign policy. What General McMaster Represents In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies – funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump\’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel – General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks. The talk, published on CSIS\’ YouTube channel in May of 2016 , features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of “invading Ukraine” and China of “challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power.” When describing China\’s “challenging” of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea – quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to “US interest” abroad – not US national security itself – by challenging the post World War 2 international order – an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.

Comments are closed.