Showing posts with label Military Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Affairs. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Major Escalation: Trump to Promote US Killing Russians as Proof He’s Not Putin’s Puppet

Killing Russians Putin(ZHE) — In the aftermath of Robert Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian “operatives” for meddling with the US presidential election, President Trump has been under fire for lashing out at everyone… except Russia. So, in response, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is weighing citing the deaths of more than 200 Russian fighters – or rather mercenaries – in […]
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Rand Paul Is Trying to Force the Senate to Do Their Job — Here’s How You Can Help

(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C. — After 16 years at war, one U.S. senator appears to have had enough. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul sat on the floor of the United States Senate Monday night to protest the lack of oversight regarding the U.S. government’s foreign policy.



As the legislative body attempts to push through the $692 billion Defense Authorization Act, the Republican senator is trying to block the bill from moving forward until his colleagues are forced to vote on an amendment that would put an end to the 2001 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.







Late Monday evening, the Senate passed a motion, to a vote of 89-3, which allowed the legislation to proceed. While the motion limits procedural debate on the legislation, Senator Paul was guaranteed four hours to be able to make his case on Tuesday.


A full vote on the NDAA could come as early as Wednesday morning, which means there is still time for your voice to be heard.


Paul wrote on Monday:




As Congress takes up the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will insist it vote on my amendment to sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.


Why?


Because these authorizations to use military force are inappropriately being used to justify American warfare in 7 different countries. Sunsetting both AUMFs will force a debate on whether we continue the Afghanistan war, the Libya war, the Yemen war, the Syria war, and other interventions.


Our military trains our soldiers to be focused and disciplined, yet the politicians who send them to fight have for years ignored those traits when developing our foreign policy.


The result? Trillions spent in seemingly endless conflicts in every corner of the globe, while we find ourselves 16 years into the war in Afghanistan wondering what our purpose there even is any more, or if we’ll ever bring our troops home.


If we don’t get this rudderless foreign policy under control now, we’ll still be asking the same questions another 16 years down the road.


It’s time to demand the policymakers take their own jobs as seriously as the men and women we ask to risk it all for our nation.



You can contact your senators by calling (202) 224-3121 if you wish to stand with Rand to help put an end to the needless wars and U.S. occupation of foreign nations.




































Rand Paul-NoMoreWar


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Trump Offers Democrats an Opportunity to Finally Oppose Endless War in Afghanistan

(SHADOWPROOF) — President Donald Trump’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan is largely a continuation of his predecessor’s policy in Afghanistan, including President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon withdrawal of United States military forces in his last year in office.



There was scant opposition to Obama’s pursuit of endless war during his presidency, and now that Trump effectively owns the agenda for war, Democrats have a political opportunity to finally oppose the war. However, at the moment, few are moving to boldly call for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops.







Trump announced the “new strategy” for Afghanistan will involve an approach based on “conditions” instead of a “time-based approach.” Obama’s policy in his last year in office, however, was based on “conditions” and largely why he abandoned plans for withdrawing United States military forces in July 2016.


He boasted of a “new strategy” that involved integrating “all instruments of American power: diplomatic, economic, and military, toward a successful outcome.” But Obama requested that allies commit additional troops to the war when 30,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan in 2009. The Obama administration also pledged to work with the United Nations and diplomatic partners.


It is unclear what Trump means by “economic” power, but Obama and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani announced in 2015 that “economic reform” was a “central pillar of the national unity government’s agenda.” Obama pledged up to $800 million in “U.S. economic assistance” to spur development.







While one might think Trump’s pledge to “not talk about numbers of troops” or “plans for further military activities” is indefensible, Obama engaged in secretive troop build-ups in Afghanistan. He claimed the combat phase of the war ended but later redefined labels to permit troops to engage in fighting in Afghanistan.


Trump claimed he “lifted restrictions” that were placed on “war fighters,” which prevented the secretary of defense and commanders from “fully and swiftly waging battle.” That is not hugely out of step when it comes to war-making policies.


The Obama administration “loosened” restrictions on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2016. As reported by the New York Times, airstrikes no longer had to be “justified as necessary to defend American troops.” Commanders were allowed to use “air power” against the Taliban when they saw fit and forces were allowed to accompany Afghan troops into combat.





Presumably, the biggest departure may be that Trump will give the U.S. military greater freedom to engage in carpet bombing on a scale that may result in the kind of civilian carnage that has occurred in Iraq since he assumed office.


Much was made about a potential expansion of the war into Pakistan without the full support of the country’s government. Recall, Obama launched around 375 drone strikes in Pakistan that injured at least 990 people and killed more than 2,100 people, including so-called militants reportedly targeted. It is not like Obama was granting terrorists sanctuary.


The war in Afghanistan was launched in 2001, as an act of retaliation for the September 11th attacks.


As of August 2016, according to the “Costs Of War Project” at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, at least 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. Well over 40,000 Afghan civilians were “seriously injured” since January 2009. The International Committee of the Red Cross treated 9,200 new patients in 2015, and 1,261 were amputees.


It was estimated, as of June 2016, that there were 1.4 million refugees inside Afghanistan and “nearly 1 million Afghans were internally displaced.” There are at least 2.6. million Afghan refugees in over 70 countries.


When Obama was still president, the percentage of civilians in Afghanistan killed by “pro-government forces,” according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), rose dramatically. Since 2013, deaths of children sharply escalated, with 639 deaths and 1,822 injuries documented. The rate of civilian deaths from airstrikes has also skyrocketed in the last two years of the Obama administration.


***


The specifics that depict the human toll of endless war in Afghanistan are what matters. Yet, what Democrats said in response largely suggests they are likely to take a technocratic approach to Trump’s plans instead of pushing for an end to war.


“When President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no timeline for withdrawal, he is declaring an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability to the American people,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared. “The American people need to know more about the President’s plans and conditions.”


“To what extent is there a comprehensive strategy, including an exit strategy for finally bringing America’s heroes home? Congress looks forward to a comprehensive briefing on the troop increase and overall strategy as soon as possible,” Pelosi added.


Pelosi neglected the record of a Democratic president, who left office with a fairly open-ended commitment to war. She also seems open to another escalation as long as Trump agrees to plan an exit strategy, which could be set years from now.


Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is the ranking Democrat on the personal subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the speech lacked details, substance, and a “vision of what success in Afghanistan looks like.”


On Twitter, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto meekly pledged to ask if Trump’s plan would really make America safer and what it would mean for deployed troops. Senator Tim Kaine tweeted, “The American public deserves more details from POTUS on Afghanistan.”


Senator Bob Casey called for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in order to make U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem more legal while Senator Tom Carper offered tempered praise as he recommended Gen. John Nicholson be kept on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Hawkishly, Senator Maggie Hassan largely echoed the warmongering of Trump and stated, “It is critical that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists, and we must constantly adjust to the situation on the ground and maintain a troop presence that can ensure that Afghanistan does not slip backward.”


Support for maintaining a U.S. troop presence was also expressed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and she suggested a “fully engaged diplomatic presence,” as well as a “stronger, more resilient NATO” would be critical.


Senator Jack Reed also recommended more emphasis on diplomacy, contending the State Department must be properly staffed and the budget for foreign aid for Afghanistan’s government must not be slashed. And Senator Richard Blumenthal argued, “Military force without forceful effective diplomacy is no strategy,” before he proceeded to endorse a continuation of war.


The closest any Senate Democrat came to strong opposition to continuing war was the statement from Senator Jeff Merkley, where he proclaimed, “Americans are exhausted by a seemingly endless war. We have lost too many brave service members, and we owe all who have served there an extraordinary debt of gratitude. It is time for the president to present a compelling plan for regional stability and an end to American military involvement — not a vague plan to continue the failed strategies of the past.”


From the House of Representatives, Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley stated, “President Trump has no strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.” He was disappointed there were no plans announced to “extract” troops from the “volatile region.”


Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur demanded “clarity of objective,” and maintained, “There can be no blank check for war anywhere. Committing more American troops without a clear path forward will not lead to the resolution of this sixteen-year war.”


While Representative Pramala Jayapal suggested Congress should listen to Americans who want to end the war and tweeted, “We need a concerted diplomatic effort to sustainably end the war in Afghanistan and bring our heroes home.”



The strongest Democratic opponent of the announced escalation was Representative Barbara Lee, who was the sole opposition for the authorization of war under President George W. Bush.



“I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s failure to outline a comprehensive strategy to bring an end to our nation’s longest war. After sixteen years at war, one thing is clear: there is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lee stated. “Any lasting peace in Afghanistan must be secured through diplomacy. Further military engagement will only put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way while doing little to enhance our national security.”



There were very few Democrats, who indicated they would staunchly oppose escalation. Some even did what Trump probably hopes they will do, which is not oppose him because they recognize war-making is part of a bipartisan national consensus in Washington, D.C.


Nevertheless, for those representatives and senators, who see themselves as part of “The Resistance,” this is no longer “The Good War” that Obama escalated, drew down, and then kick-started again. It is Trump’s war. They have a political opportunity to resist perpetual war under a deeply unpopular and despised president.


By Kevin Gosztola / Republished with permission / ShadowProof.com / Report a typo


This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Rand Paul Blocks NDAA Over Indefinite Detention

(ANTIWAR.COM) Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) has blocked a motion by majority leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) to advance the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the massive military spending bill, saying that the bill should instead face debate and possible amendments. This sets the bill back for 6 weeks, at least.



In particular, Sen. Paul is seeking two amendments, one which ends NDAA authorization for indefinite detention of suspects, and another related to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), something that was added to the House version but later quietly removed by the Speaker.







Paul’s protest is expected to delay the NDAA vote through at least the August recess, meaning a vote is unlikely until September. While this gives plenty of time for amendments to be debated, it’s not clear the Senate leadership will allow that no matter how much time they’re given.


Indeed, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) was critical of any delay on any grounds, insisting the bill and its huge spending increase are a “solemn obligation” for the Senate to pass without delay. Other Senators have repeatedly been angry with Sen. Paul for not getting their way on bills, but the military spending bill is such a large one it’s likely to be particularly unpopular to debate, as quietly slipping it through is the way these things usually go.


READ NEXT: The US Army Says It Doesn’t Know What It Did with $1 Billion in Weapons







By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 28, 2017

John McCain is a Harbinger of Death, Stop Calling Him a Hero

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) was recently diagnosed with glioblastoma, a serious form of brain cancer. In preparation for the inevitable end to McCain’s life, career, and legacy — whether he succumbs to cancer or old age — the mainstream media has come out in full force to educate us about the major lessons we should take away from McCain’s illustrious lifelong accomplishments.



The Washington Post writes:







“And all over this world, Mr. McCain is associated with freedom and democracy. He has championed human rights with verve and tirelessness – speaking out against repression and authoritarianism, and inviting – no, cajoling – his colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to bear witness with him on trips abroad.”

Let’s work our way backward.


In mid-February of this year, Mr. McCain made a secret trip to Syria that only came to light after he had already taken the visit. One can only wonder how many Republicans and Democrats he invited on this trip considering Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s independent visit to Syria was severely lambasted by both sides of the political spectrum. As CNN reported at the time, Mr. McCain “argued for more aggressive military involvement in the Syrian Civil War,” a move that currently has no international legal basis and certainly has nothing to do with human rights or democracy.


In 2012, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slideshow presentation that explained the true nature of America’s military involvement in Syria. According to the New York Times, Dempsey said imposing a no-fly zone, as many establishment politicians have advocated, “would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated anti-aircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.”







At the time of Dempsey’s estimate, the Russian military had not yet intervened to bolster Assad’s forces in Syria. But this week, Russia signed a law ratifying a deal with the Syrian government allowing Russia to keep its air base in Syria for almost half a century, meaning the military commitment Mr. McCain has been advocating would require a full-scale war with Russia. In this context, the least dangerous scenario possible would require over 70,000 Americans to risk their lives in the Syrian conflict against a military heavily defended by Russia and Iran, all while the U.S. keeps fighting wars on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan).


In 2013, Mr. McCain met with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in another “surprise” visit. He also met with other leaders of Free Syrian Army units. As far back as 2012, Reuters the FSA was heavily embedded with extremists. FSA commanders also admitted on record to conducting joint operations with al-Nusra, Syria’s official al-Qaeda branch, whom they referred to as their “brothers”.


Idris was effectively ousted in 2014 and replaced by a military commander whose aim was to not only topple the Assad government but also to work together with anti-Iranian groups to topple Iran.

Some years later, we learned that the majority of Syrian rebels share ISIS’ core ideology and have the express intention of establishing Sharia law, according to a think tank commissioned by the Tony Blair Foundation. We also learned that Syrian rebels cannot be divided into moderates and extremists because they all work together on the ground, anyway.





The Washington Post’s David Ignatius bragged that these CIA-backed Syrian rebels had killed 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the years – as if this is something to celebrate. Whether we like it or not, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is defending its country from a foreign-backed insurgency spearheaded by the United States, and 2016 it was the most heavily engaged entity fighting ISIS. The fact that 500,000 Syrians have returned to areas liberated by these SSA soldiers is a testament to the fact that the CIA-backed rebels are not liberating Syria but are in fact the very types of people that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have been fleeing the country to escape in the first place.


Has this changed Mr. McCain’s position on Syria? Not at all. In fact, Donald Trump’s decision to end the covert CIA program that trains and arms these fanatic rebels was met with strict condemnation from Mr. McCain, who argued that Trump has handed a “concession” to Russia. Mr. McCain appears to believe that attempting the same failed strategy over and over will one day lead the world to an inevitable success.


After advocating for and subsequently praising the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Mr. McCain tweeted a confrontational statement to then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that read “Dear Vlad, the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood near you.”


Threats of murder and or/toppling the governments of other world leaders aren’t democratic, nor are their motives rooted in human rights concerns. In the years leading up Gaddafi’s death – brought about by a campaign that Mr. McCain strongly supported despite the absence of congressional approval for the American-led intervention – Libya had the highest standard of living out of any country in Africa and provided its people with state-sponsored health care. It also had an inclusive participatory system that involved decision-making at the local level. This system was observed by the New York Times in 2009, and though the Times was heavily critical of this experiment, the system was almost certainly better than the state of Libya today. Over 2 million children are out of school, and the country has rapidly fallen on the U.N. Human Development Index rating.


In the very same year the New York Times observed Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, in a private meeting with Gaddafi and his son, Mr. McCain offered to sell weapons to Gaddafi to “provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security.” Ironically enough, it was Mr. McCain and his cohort of hawkish lawmakers that ended up posing the biggest threat to Libyan security when they advocated for bombing Libya back into the Stone Age in 2011 (there’s always an arms deal to be made in there somewhere, though). NATO even bombed a Libyan water factory that supplied 70 percent of the country’s water, and as the U.N. noted, it was the Libyan government that was attempting to fix the problem — not the other way around.


Mr. McCain voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2003, and this was not just a mere policy mistake. He even wanted military action in Iraq shortly after 9/11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks that took place that fateful day. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the decisions that were made during that invasion directly fueled the rise of ISIS, led to the deaths of over one million Iraqi civilians, and from the point of view of the U.N., were completely illegal.


McCain has also been the biggest advocate of confronting Russia in Ukraine, heavily supporting that country’s descent into turmoil. The man who was backed by the U.S. to take over Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department with the aptly coined nickname “our Ukrainian insider.” His approval rating currently sits somewhere around 17 percent. In his bid to promote ‘democracy’ in Ukraine, Mr. McCain met with known neo-Nazis with incredibly fascist policy ideas, particularly in relation to Ukraine’s Jewish population.


Democracy, human rights, freedom. All around the world.


Speaking of championing human rights, why does Mr. McCain have such strong ties to Saudi Arabia, a nation the U.S. State Department admits is responsible for a host of human rights abuses? Why did he work so hard to make sure Trump’s multi billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia went through even though Saudi Arabia is launching a war of aggression in neighboring Yemen and committing countless war crimes in the process?


Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab world. Its people need food and an uplifted blockade, not billion dollar death machines that target the vital remaining elements of their infrastructure.


Why does Mr. McCain heavily support Israel’s brutal occupation and relentless bombardment of the Palestinian people if he truly champions human rights across the world? One does not need to be anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, or even pro-Palestinian to recognize the horror Israel has unleashed on Gaza’s civilian population.


As a person, Mr. McCain is nothing short of repugnant. As the Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan explains:


“He [McCain] once compared the president of Iran to a monkey and still insists on calling his Vietnamese captors ‘gooks’ (the fact that they brutally tortured him does not excuse his repeated use of a crude racial epithet). Then there is his poor wife. As journalist Cliff Schecter recounts in his 2008 book ‘The Real McCain’:


“In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, ‘You’re getting a little thin up there.’ McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, ‘At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.’”


Upon hearing the news of Mr. McCain’s recent diagnosis, Barack Obama stated on Twitter that John McCain is an American hero and a brave fighter. “Cancer doesn’t know what it’s up against. Give it hell, John,” the former president concluded.


This is all the while, McCain receives taxpayer-funded treatment (it was taxpayer-funded health insurance that detected his cancer in the first instance) only to leave his treatment as soon as possible to fly thousands of miles to cast a vote ensuring that millions of Americans could never receive such a treatment if they needed it.



Therefore, it’s safe to say that most of America probably doesn’t know what it’s up against, either, nor does the rest of the world considering Mr. McCain’s ability to interfere in egregious and illogical ways across the global chessboard.


If he does depart this earth, at least he will take his warmongering and cowardly legacy with him to the grave.


Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Doesn’t Go Far Enough: Everyone Should Be Banned

(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed)  Social media outrage erupted Wednesday after President Trump announced his decision to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals in the military. But as many condemned the move as discriminatory, another widely overlooked sentiment is far more pressing: the ban didn’t go far enough. Everyone should be banned from the military.



Though military service is often regarded as the highest form of patriotism and the institution and its veterans are considered by many Americans to be immune from criticism — and owed unquestioning respect — the facts on the ground paint a very different picture.







Over the decades, the United States military has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians. This isn’t an honorable opportunity that should be extended to all variations of Americans. It should be extended to none.


This doesn’t mean it isn’t noble to advocate tolerance and equality for transgender individuals. Societal discrimination and phobia of transgender individuals are real, and as trans individuals struggle to gain recognition as human beings, it is a valiant effort to recognize their plight and their humanity.


But to argue that doing so requires equal access to military service is to deny the humanity of other human beings. In the Trump era, over 2,000 civilians have already been killed in U.S. military operations. His secretary of defense, General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, has made it clear he is unconcerned with civilian casualties, and a recent report found as many as 40,000 civilians were killed in the recent months-long battle for Mosul – one ultimately deemed a “liberation” by the military and its media lapdogs (though not all the deaths were caused by the U.S. military, ISIS’ domination of Iraq in the first place is a direct consequence of U.S. military operations).







This type of carnage was commonplace under Barack Obama, who received glowing praise for his “tolerant” policy toward transgender individuals in the military as he blew up wedding parties and funerals in Yemen and directly caused the deaths of children in multiple countries while escalating the war in Afghanistan. He drew the U.S. military into even more countries than George W. Bush with the drone program, exponentially expanding robotic warfare.


But it isn’t just presidents who have made the military a moral dumpster fire.


The ruling establishment in the U.S. military has punished soldiers who objected to their Afghan allies raping children. It has been responsible for the loss of weapons that ended up in the hands of ISIS. It strategically desired the proliferation of that terror group for the purpose of gaining geopolitical dominance in the region. The military’s soldiers have killed journalists — as exposed by transgender former soldier Chelsea Manning. Soldiers have tortured individuals never charged with a crime. They have terrorized and murdered innocent women and children.





Further, the military’s top ally in the Middle East brutally oppresses trans individuals domestically.


This is not a concern for the U.S. military, which has military officials in the command room of the Saudi military’s operations in Yemen, where thousands of civilians have been slaughtered or forced to the brink of starvation because of the Saudis’ unrelenting assaults on infrastructure and agriculture. Their war there is largely intended to strengthen the monarchy’s power in the region — the same monarchy that “has carried out arrests for cross-dressing and ordered the imprisonment and flogging of men accused of behaving like women, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch,” Newsweek has noted.


All of this serves not only to preserve American hegemony and control of resources, but to keep profits flowing for massive military-industrial conglomerations like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, who currently have officials making calls in the Pentagon (American defense companies are also selling the Saudis weapons they use in their assault on Yemen).


The American crusade is not a humane one and has no place for individuals fighting for their own humanity or the betterment of mankind — and it hasn’t been for decades.


Rather than begging a violent institution to validate trans individuals, Americans — regardless of sexual identity — should ban themselves from joining a military that has become a force for corporate hegemony, resource grabs, and war crimes around the world, rather than a force for freedom. Doing so would do far more to promote the cause of universal acceptance than indulging in jingoistic nationalism behind the barrels of guns and joysticks of remote-controlled bombers and calling it progress.



Those who want to serve their country should exercise their rights to oppose the inhumane actions of the military rather than seek to partake in them. After all, it matters little to innocent victims of American violence whether the person dropping bombs on them identifies as straight, gay, transgender, or anything else.


Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking: President Trump Just Banned Transgenders From Serving in the Military

(ZHE) — President Trump just sent liberals across America scrambling with a 3-tweet statement sure to be a talking point that proves his fascist ways…














The decision will affect nearly 150,000 active and/or retired/veteran people on service in the US military.








And just like that, Caitlyin Jenner’s Senate run gets a boost…



“I felt a great disturbance in the Farce, as if millions of snowflakes suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”








The Defense Department estimates as many as 7,000 transgender troops serve in the active-duty force of 1.3 million.


Here is one Delta Force Operator’s reality check (via IJR.com)… All soldiers in the U.S. Army are now required to take a 50-minute training course on transgender sensitivity. Independent Journal Review wanted to know what veterans who have trained thousands of soldiers to fight in combat think about the news.


We spoke with U.S. Army Master Sergeant (Ret.) and Delta Force Operator Dale Comstock. Comstock has seen more war than the average American can wrap their head around. In fact, he’s served in every major campaign from Grenada in 1983 to present-day conflicts.


Comstock said:



“This whole political-social experiment is not helping. The reality is, it’s in the Army, it’s in the Navy, it’s in the military. And unless Mattis and Trump rescind all these policies and stop this madness, it’s here to stay.


It affects morale and combat readiness on many levels. At the end of the day, war fighting is about one thing: Killing people. It’s about bringing home our guys alive. It’s not about being sensitive to a transgender. This isn’t corporate America, this is the military.


You can’t just put some policy in place because you want people to feel equal. Most guys who join the military, especially special operations forces, were the boys who had dirt clod fights on the playground, wrestled and fist fought, stole each other’s girlfriends, and pledged allegiance to the flag. And that same spirit and apex predator mindset goes with us into the military.”



For those curious, here is a full breakdown on Transgender in US Military Service from the Williams Institute.



By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo


This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 22, 2017

A Complete History of John McCain Calling for War Around the World

(GPA) — Earlier this week notorious war hawk US Senator John McCain (R-Az) was diagnosed with brain cancer. While the liberal and conservative establishments are sending their regards, Geopolitics Alert instead compiled a list of reasons why we don’t care about McCain.



The list is of course a history of all the instances McCain has called for US-led intervention around the world. There’s obviously a long history here, so Geopolitics Alert has compiled the largest examples from Europe to Asia. We’ll start with the obvious wars first.







Afghanistan and Iraq


Obviously every US senator (besides California’s Barbara Lee) voted to give president George W. Bush the power to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11th. However, McCain wasn’t happy with just moving to invade Afghanistan. No, he had other targets on his mind as early as the day after the towers fell.


Despite McCain’s claim in 2014 that “the Iraq war probably wouldn’t have happened” if he had won the 2000 Republican primary and then general election, this assertion seems ridiculous. On September 12th 2001, McCain appeared on MSNBC presenting a long list of countries he felt were providing a “safe harbor” to groups like al Qaeda. This list of course included Iraq and several other countries that appear later on this list.


Syria


Another country on that 2001 list (of course) was Syria. Now, the Bush regime may have never gotten a chance to continue toppling Mideast countries (thanks to the failure in Iraq and the exposure of that war being sold on lies). But McCain seemingly never lost sight of his hatred for Bashar Al-Assad.







Shortly after the Arab Spring “broke out” in Syria, McCain – and his constant partner in war crimes Sen. Lindsey Graham – quickly found communication channels with the “Syrian opposition.” Just a few short months after the US endorsed protests in Syria (even having their ambassador attend), McCain and Graham began calling for arms to start flowing to the Free Syrian Army and other “rebel” groups.


Libya


McCain’s plans for Syria never quite worked the way he wanted but he probably should’ve know they would never yield a positive result. If McCain didn’t want to look at Iraq to prove that point, he had another more recent example he could’ve used: the NATO intervention in Libya.


It was less than a year before McCain wanted to arm Syrian takfiris that he had supported with the bombing and no fly zones in Libya. McCain even wanted tougher actions against the country. Which has now become an anarchic Wild West that’s home to all sorts of horrors from the Islamic State to a new slave trade.





West and Central Africa


McCain is also a champion of the “war on terror” in other parts of Africa. While McCain hasn’t directly supported terrorists in some countries in Africa, he still has called for more US intervention across the continent.


This list includes countries dealing with Islamic insurgencies, such as Mali. McCain has also called for plans like “deploying Special Forces” to rescue girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria and intervention in Sudan, where McCain and his wife have invested money for some time.


Iran


Another country on the list of hated nations originally put forth by Bush undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, and also another long time target of McCain, is of course Iran.


Although McCain has always said “he prays” there will never be at war with Iran, the man constantly calls for it and even jokes about bombing the country when he feels the mood is right. The truth of the matter is, McCain’s positions towards Iran are so hostile that even flagship neoconservative institutions like the Cato Institute think he is too hawkish.


Bosnia and Kosovo


But McCain isn’t satisfied with just backing salafi jihadists in the traditional Middle East and North African theaters. He’s also backed violent radicals across the fringes of Europe. This trend really started in the mid 1990’s when McCain was a vocal supporter of then president Bill Clinton’s war in Bosnia.


Many of the Muslims traveling to Bosnia joining the mujahideen there have joined groups like IS in recent years. And IS flags can occasionally be seen in the Sunni areas of Bosnia now. McCain was still backing potential takfiri movements, recently accusing Russia of interfering in local affairs, and calling for more US intervention in the country.


McCain made similar decisions when he advocated US intervention in Kosovo in the late 90’s. In the Kosovo conflict, McCain backed the Kosovo Liberation Army: a genocidal jihadist organization with ties to Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden.


Ukraine


Don’t be fooled into thinking that McCain only supports jihadists in Eastern Europe though! He also backs the overt Nazis acting as death squads for Kiev in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.


This of course started in 2014, but McCain has continued to pledge support for Kiev’s crimes in the Donbass region to this day. This is all par for the course in McCain’s larger theme of challenging Russia– the country he believes controls the separatists in eastern Ukraine.


Russia


The story of McCain’s hatred of Russia spans back to the Cold War. We won’t get into McCain’s fear of communism that’s evolved into just general Russophobia. But we will say he didn’t have many excuses to focus on making threats towards Moscow for a good 15-20 year stretch.


This changed in 2008, with the war in South Ossetia between Georgia and Russia. During this conflict McCain was the loudest voice saying the US “should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation.”


This same situation repeated in Ukraine in 2014 but McCain’s worst comments came this year. As soon as the US Intelligence Community’s accused Russia of interference in the 2016 US elections– and without any evidence– McCain was first to say the event was an “act of war.”


North Korea


The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DRPK/North Korea) was also an early target of McCain’s making his September 12th wish list. More recently though, the restyled “Trump opponent” McCain was all-in on the new regime’s saber rattling. Calling on Trump to strike the nuclear armed country.


Bonus: China


China is kind of in its own class with McCain, who’s made strange vague threats towards the country in the past. Such as “the Arab spring is coming to China,” whatever that means. China may be a target on the periphery for McCain but he does still encourage antagonizing the country to this day. Calling for things like more “freedom of navigation drills” and other naval exercises in the South China Sea.


So, in summation, next time someone asks why you don’t care about John McCain’s clock running out, show them this article. McCain has encouraged the spread of death worldwide. The day he leaves congress will be a victory for the human race.



By Jim Carey / Republished with permission / Geopolitics Alert / Report a typo


This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 3, 2017

This Is the Real Reason Why the US Wants War Between Iran and Saudi Arabia

(ANTIMEDIA) — Though on the campaign trail Donald Trump bragged about making America great again (MAGA™) and creating jobs for 25 million ordinary Americans, most people may be surprised to learn that his foreign policy, in particular, will provide jobs and wealth for the American markets. Unfortunately, those jobs will materialize in America’s fracking industry, which has been waiting for something to kickstart their potential to further exploit the planet.





By supporting Saudi Arabia and its allies in their confrontation with Iran— preparing the groundwork for an all-out confrontation between the regional powerhouses — Donald Trump may help foster a major disruption in Middle East oil supplies and drop the price of crude oil. This is, according to Forbes, a dream scenario for American frackers who will be able to pump oil quickly to supply America’s allies amid any potential Middle East oil crisis.



Iran has already signaled its intention to close the Strait of Hormuz should the U.S. or one of its client states, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel, decide to wage a war against the Islamic Republic. Iran even has plans to mine the waterway, and just last month Iran and China held joint naval drills in this vitally strategic body of water.







According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 17 million barrels of oil pass through this strait per day, representing 30% of all maritime-traded petroleum. The closure or disruption of this strait alone will directly impact on the world’s oil markets.


As Forbes notes, there are signs that Saudi Arabia and Iran are edging closer to a direct confrontation (they have already been heavily engaged in proxy wars in the region against each other as it is). Saudi Arabia’s promotion of anti-Iranian war-hawk Prince Salman, the King’s son, to Crown Prince is but one of the indicators that Iran and Saudi Arabia may soon be fighting out their disputes militarily.


“The biggest gainers will be the US frackers,” says Athens-based shipping expert Theo Matsopoulos, as reported by Forbes. He continued:







“With an extremely wide break-even range from $32 to $55 per barrel, an increase in the oil price to levels higher than $50 will make the overwhelming majority of them smile. The US will soon be able to finance its trading deficit and solidify even more its position as a major oil exporter. The longer a potential crisis in the Middle East lasts, the more the market share of the US companies will increase — because apart from prices and commodities the political stability of the USA can act as a guarantee for a smooth supply of oil for many consumers.”


According to Forbes, this is why Washington may “do little if anything to stop a direct war between the two old adversaries.”


Forbes also suggested that if Russia were to buy into this scenario, their own oil producers would benefit. However, the U.S.’ aim in controlling the oil market and reaping all the rewards would surely not allow a place for Russia to join in this venture, so it seems likely that Russia would ultimately be an indirect target of this potential strategy, as well.


Because of the high stakes involved in such a conflict, a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran may not be on the horizon anytime soon. However, in the event that this inevitable clash does break out into something tangible, remember that Donald Trump has had American financial interests at heart the whole time — as he promised in his campaign.


That’s all that matters, right? Money, wealth, and natural resources.


And let’s not forget the billions of dollars the U.S. will make in arms sales, alone (maybe the U.S. will secretly arm Iran again just to maximize the chaos).


Let’s just put out of our head the millions upon millions of people who die in American-led wars across the Middle East. As long as someone can make a fast buck out of the chaos, Trump and his followers can sleep soundly at night.


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Lawmakers Demand Trump Pump Brakes on Military Action in Yemen

(COMMONDREAMS) As conflict swirls over the recent U.S. bombing in Syria, more than 50 bipartisan lawmakers have demanded President Donald Trump seek approval from Congress before expanding U.S. military action in another Middle East theater: Yemen.








The letter sent this week came in response to reports that the Trump administration is considering a proposal to directly engage the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthis in Yemen, including a planned United Arab Emirates-led attack on the Yemeni port of Hodeida, currently held by Houthi rebels.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




“Such an attack could push the country into full-blown famine, where nearly half a million children in Yemen are facing starvation,” said U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who led the letter campaign along with Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).







As Common Dreams reported in March, the U.S.-supported war in Yemen has already led the country to what one journalist described as “the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world.”


Furthermore, “Direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis would run counter to your pledge to pursue a ‘disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy’ that protects American families in ‘every decision’,” reads the letter to Trump. “Indeed, according to U.S. defense officials, the U.S.-backed Saudi war against Houthis in Yemen has already ‘strengthened al Qaeda there’ and poses ‘a serious threat to U.S. security’.”


The lawmakers, who garnered 50 additional signatures for their missive, note that “Congress has never authorized the actions under consideration.”







In turn, they write:



Engaging our military against Yemen’s Houthis when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers clearly delineated in the Constitution. For this reason, we write to request that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provide, without delay, any legal justification that it would cite if the administration intends to engage in direct hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis without seeking congressional authorization.


As U.S. Representatives, we take seriously the right and responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force, or to refuse to do so, as mandated by the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. We expect that any direct military actions pursued by the administration against the Yemeni Houthis be brought before Congress for consideration and authorization for approval before they are executed.



“President Trump does not have the authority to send U.S. forces to battle the Houthis in Yemen, period,” said Lieu. “Once again, the administration appears ready to ramp up U.S. involvement in a complicated civil war without a clear strategy in place or the necessary authorization from Congress. A unilateral decision for direct U.S. involvement in Yemen would be met by swift, bipartisan opposition.”


The letter, and a full list of signatories, is here (pdf).


Just Foreign Policy, which supported the signature campaign along with other anti-war organizations, is now urging constituents to demand their lawmakers invoke the War Powers Resolution when they return from recess on April 25, “to explicitly prohibit military escalation in Syria and Yemen.”


“I can’t promise you that we can stop this catastrophe,” wrote Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy last month. “But we used this exact same mechanism less than four years ago and were successful in stopping U.S. military action,” he continued, referring to the 2013 effort to stop then-President Barack Obama from bombing the Syrian government. “Given that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children hang in the balance, isn’t it worth a try?”





by Deirdre Fulton / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 9, 2017

House Passes $578 Billion Military Spending Bill




(ANTIWAR) The House of Representatives today voted 371-48, with massive majorities in both parties, in favor of another $578 billion military spending bill to cover the remainder of fiscal year 2017. The bill now moves on to the Senate, where it again is expected to easily pass.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




The exact meaning of the figures is a little difficult to understand this time around, because Congress had already passed a military spending bill for fiscal year 2017 back in December, which was $611 billion. That bill was only ever intended to be a fraction of what was to be spent, aiming to give way to a second “emergency” bill before April, which is today’s bill, which would cover the rest of the year. That said, there is a lot of overlap between the two and the overall budget is not just a matter of adding the two together.





Indeed, the $578 billion one voted on today probably will be bigger by the time it gets signed, with President Trump seeking to add another $30 billion, which is meant to be a first step toward what he promises will be a 9% increase in spending in fiscal year 2018.


The new bill intends $516 billion for “basic” military requirements, which is more than double any other nation on the planet’s spending, and also includes about $62 billion in additional spending for America’s assorted wars and occupations.


The only potential obstacle in the Senate is from the usual hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) and John McCain (R – AZ), for whom any military budget, no matter how substantial its growth, is much too small, and doesn’t include nearly enough new wars to appear sufficiently patriotic.







By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / AntiWar.com / Report a typo

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

120 U.S. Generals and Admirals Just Sent Trump a Dire Warning About Diplomacy




(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) America’s generals are talking turkey. But we’re not talking about the well-known idiom for “speaking frankly” about a subject … although over 120 retired generals did just send a frank letter in response to a new State Department-slashing budget proposal by President Trump.


In that unusual military missive, a group of “former three- and four-star generals” led by “Retired Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, and retired Adm. James Stavridis, the former NATO supreme allied commander,” pled with lawmakers and yet another general, new National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, to preserve State Department funding.







Why do these men of war want to make sure Trump doesn’t gut diplomacy? Because they think it is “critical to keeping America safe,” according to a report by CNN on the much-discussed letter.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




Silly generals. Don’t they know that Trump’s $54 billion military budget increase — which all by itself equals 80% of Russia’s total military budget — is all the diplomacy Uncle Sam’s going to need in his blustery new world of nuclear domination? In fact, don’t they know that their never-serving commander-in-chief actually knows more than they do? As ever, it appears that the generals are woefully behind Trump’s tremendous curve.


Or are they?





Because the real turkey some generals are talking is Turkey … as in the strategically located Muslim-majority nation where America stores some of those tantalizing nukes Trump wants to stockpile. It’s also where one of the world’s many strongmen du jour is cracking down on his enemies in the press … along with many, many others.  And it’s where the military has traditionally been the guarantor of the secular nation’s often tenuous democracy. It’s the type of role the military in the United States has (mostly) avoided over the course of American history. At least, that was until Donald Trump became commander-in-chief.


Now, in a mostly overlooked story, Politico has detailed the extent to which Trump’s cabinet of generals has quietly formed a phalanx against the possible excesses of a man who has described himself as the “most militaristic person who will ever meet.” According to Politico, the elevation of Sith Lord-wannabe Steve Bannon set off alarms among Trump’s generals. That order also marginalized Joint Chiefs Of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. It left “the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, without a permanent seat on the NSC’s most senior body” and put Bannon in the all-important role of being the last person to have Trump’s ear when Mr. Militaristic makes life and death decisions to use kinetic force.


As Politico’s Patrick Granfield wrote (with thanks to additional reporting by the Associated Press), “it was on account of concern with these sorts of half-baked executive orders coming out of the White House that Mattis and Kelly arranged to have one of them in the country at all times during Trump’s initial weeks in office.”


Yes, you read that correctly. Former Generals Mattis and Kelly were alarmed enough by this turn of events to institute a fail-safe plan that made sure one of them was “in the country at all times” … just in case things went off the rails. As Garfield states all too clearly, “it shows that it is military leaders, albeit retired, who feel the need to guard against the overreach of a civilian executive. It’s a phenomenon familiar to countries like Turkey or Egypt, but not the United States. Until now.”


Yup, until now.


Frankly speaking, this notable insight into the generals’ startling machinations fits a fairly clear pattern. Despite the understandable unease many expressed at Trump’s obsession with collecting top brass, they’ve thus far been bulwarks against the excesses of the blaring bugle boy they’ve signed up to serve.


The key moment may have been the National Security state showing the door to the widely disliked Lt. General Michael Flynn. The Strangelovian Flynn was unceremoniously dumped because insiders didn’t like his rosy “Russian to judgment” on Putin. Perhaps just as important, though, may have been his dangerous histrionics about Islam that were tantamount to declaring war on a religion. Coincidentally, it wasn’t too shortly after Flynn “put Iran on notice” that the final leaks washed out his tenure.


The appointment of the widely-respected warrior-scholar Gen. H.R. McMaster to fill that vacancy signaled a big win for the people who know what it means to send people into combat. In fact, while the draft-avoiding Trump was enduring his own “personal Vietnam” by avoiding the lurid landmines of sexually transmitted diseases as he charged into the battlefield of Manhattan’s nightlife, his new National Security Advisor was literally writing the book on Vietnam. And that’s not the only way the two men are not on the same page.


Unlike Trump, McMaster pointedly said that the magic words “Radical Islamic Terrorism” not only lack supernatural implications but are counterproductive to the fight against terrorism. Even better, the head of Trump’s Department of Homeland Security not only contradicted his boss when said he “regretted” the bungled rollout of the “It’s Not A Muslim Ban” Muslim ban, but General John Kelly’s DHS also sent a report to the White House contradicting the claim that the famous “seven countries” pose a risk to the United States, according to the Wall Street Journal.


But Trump knows more than the generals, right?


At least, that’s what a senior administration official believes. That’s why the unnamed official unabashedly told the Journal, “The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for.” Perhaps this was yet more evidence to Kelly and Mattis that during those frenetic first few weeks one of them needed to be “in country” just in case the fight to protect the republic went hot.


So far, the only real heat is coming from the commander-in-chief’s self-serving willingness to deflect the responsibility for the disastrous raid on Yemen. Although the White House still claims it was a tremendous success, the raid yielded no usable intelligence, failed to nab the targeted terrorist, saw a Navy Seal killed and a $75 million plane go up in flames and, perhaps worst of all, a number of women and children killed in the hackneyed operation. But now the Democrats see a sequel to Benghazi, and the father of the fallen SEAL not only refused to meet with Trump but also called for an investigation into the debacle.


So, true to form, the commander-in-chief has blamed the generals for muffing what would otherwise have been a highly-rated episode of his ongoing divorced-from-reality show. And what better place for him to pass the buck than on another divorced from reality show—the feckless fawners of FOX & Friends. As Trump said to the media’s most mendacious ménage a trios:


“This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do. They came to me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.”


They lost Ryan. Or, to coin a phrase, they didn’t save Chief Petty Officer Ryan Owens. Steve Bannon couldn’t have scripted it any better. Seriously, he literally couldn’t have scripted it better. The movies he made totally sucked. But Trump, who watched a lot of generals on TV in preparation for his candidacy, has obviously been locked and loaded ever since he watched Spielberg’s movie. Like the cynically stagecrafted ovation he produced for CPO Ryan’s heartbroken widow, Trump delivered his blame-shifting lines like a real pro. Unfortunately, the actual pros in the military are now at the whim of a commander-in-chief whose only real allegiance is to himself and his beloved brand identity.


And that’s the real danger the generals now have to guard against — the inherent paranoia that seems to come with the strongman style of governance. Ultimately, when the leader begins to confuse himself with the state — and when culpability for mishaps and malfeasance are opportunities to force underlings to fall on their swords — the generals in tenuous democracies often have to do what the electoral system cannot.


But because America is not Turkey, all Trump can do right now is propose a draconian, government-gutting budget, sign often-ceremonial executive orders, and prioritize brash displays of phallic power over the softer power of diplomacy. Perhaps surprisingly, it’s that soft power the generals want to preserve.


As the missive from the retired generals pointed out, “The State Department, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.” They also noted that when he was Commander of U.S. Central Command, Trump’s current Secretary of Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis said, “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”


Unfortunately for us all, that’s exactly what Trump intends to do.


Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)