15-02-2018, 03:17 PM
Lauren Johnson Wrote:They've got him surrounded: Justin Ramondo
As Vice President Mike Pence made a fool both of himself and the country he is supposed to be representing at the Olympic Games by refusing to stand for the athletes of any nation other than the US, back at home the Washington Postwas reporting on a President Trump who appears to have nothing in common either with Pence or with the White House staff. The piece, entitled "Trump's favorite general: Can Mattis check an impulsive president and still retain his trust?" tells a story that pits a President inclined to challenge the War Party against a Praetorian Guard determined to nullify his electoral mandate to keep out of foreign wars and put "America first":
"Although Trump has given the military broad latitude on the battlefield, he also has raised pointed questions about the wisdom of the wars being fought by the United States. Last year, after a delegation of Iraqi leaders visited him in the Oval Office, Trump jokingly referred to them as the most accomplished group of thieves he'd ever met,' according to one former U.S. official."
Truer words were never spoken, but of course this leak is designed to embarrass Trump and put him at odds with those very thieves. Mattis was presumably horrified by this truism, since the General is an even bigger thief, having successfully manipulated Congress into appropriating 15.5 percentmore money for the military than Trump asked. The Post piece goes on to detail the President's many heresies:
"He has repeatedly pressed Mattis and McMaster in stark terms to explain why US troops are in Somalia. Can't we just pull out?' he has asked, according to US officials.
"Last summer, Trump was weighing plans to send more soldiers to Afghanistan and was contemplating the military's request for more-aggressive measures to target Islamic State affiliates in North Africa. In a meeting with his top national security aides, the president grew frustrated. You guys want me to send troops everywhere,' Trump said, according to officials in the Situation Room meeting. What's the justification?'"
Oh, the shocked silence in that room must have lasted for what seemed like forever. Then Mattis came up with the same old bullshit:
"Sir, we're doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,' Mattis replied."
Trump didn't fall for it: "The response angered Trump, who insisted that Mattis could make the same argument about almost any country on the planet." And the President wasn't alone in his skepticism: "Attorney General Jeff Sessions echoed Trump's concerns, asking whether winning was even possible in a place such as Afghanistan or Somalia."
Here's the scary part, which concludes the piece:
"It was Mattis who made the argument that would, for the moment at least, sway Trump to embrace the status quo which has held for the past two presidents.
"Unfortunately, sir, you have no choice,' Mattis told Trump, according to officials. You will be a wartime president.'"
Really? Why is that? And which war is Mattis specifically referring to? Afghanistan? We're largely out of Iraq. Syria the latest addition to our interventionist folly? We aren't told, but in my view it's not any foreign war Mattis is referring to, but perhaps unconsciously he's referencing the war at home, i.e. the one being conducted by his own government against the President of the United States.
We read about it every day in the media: the Russia-gate hoax is still being flogged, despite growing evidence of its utter falsity. Robert Mueller is still on the prowl, looking for a pretext to take Trump down. The media, a longtime adjunct of the national security bureaucracy, is openly working in tandem with the intelligence services to take out Trump and if you want to know why, just re-read the reporting on Trump's reluctance to go along with the War Party's murderous agenda.
So once they take him down, who will be Trump's replacement? It'll be Mike Pence, of course, the same person doing everything in his power to destroy the possibility of peace on the Korean peninsula quite against Trump's expressed hope that "we can make a deal" with North Korea.
The War Party cannot tolerate a President who questions the most basic premises of the American Empire: "You guys want me to send troops everywhere!" Of course they do. However, Trump was elected to carry out a very different mandate: to start putting America first. He railed against regime change. And now the regime-changers want to carry out a change of regime against him.
Just look at the reporting by James Risen in The Intercept: the FBI/CIA/NSA cabal paid a Russian operative $100,000 as a down payment on a total of a million to get compromising material on Trump. Isn't this kind of thing only supposed to happen in places like Tadjikistan? Oh, it was all done under the pretext of getting back our stolen cyber-war tools, but really how valuable are they if the Russians already have them? Sure, we could find out what was stolen we still don't know but the long involved process described by Risen is really about getting rid of Trump. That's all they really care about right now, and they'll stop at nothing including, I believe, assassination to pull it off.
There's too much money riding on the continued existence and expansion of our worldwide empire to let Trump ruin their scam. Too many careers are based on it, too much prestige is at stake, too many "allies" are dependent on the largesse it affords them. They're boxing him in, despite his noninterventionist instincts, and they're compiling "dossiers," and they're mobilizing all their forces for the final assault on the Oval Office. In an important sense, Trump is being held hostage: they have limited his policy options in every important sphere of the national security/foreign policy realm, The "swamp" Trump talks about is an international miasma, and swamp creatures of diverse nationalities are crawling out of the muck, their claws aimed straight for the presidential throat.
The War Party plays for keeps. The question is: does Donald Trump? We shall see.
Cool story. Unfortunately it doesn't fit any known facts. Trump may occasionally express skepticism about foreign wars. So did Dubya:
So did Obama. Remember how Obama wanted to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Let's look at what Trump does. After throwing billions more at the Pentagon last year, in his next budget he proposes:
http://fortune.com/2018/02/12/trump-military-budget/
[FONT=&]President Donald Trump's $686 billion defense request for the coming fiscal year would propel the Navy toward a new goal of 355 ships, restore major funding for a Boeing Co. fighter jet favored by the president and boost missile defense spending to counter threats from North Korea and Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]On its voyage to a 355-ship Navy, the budget plan envisions building the fleet to 299 vessels by the end of fiscal 2019, which begins Oct. 1, and 326 by 2023. The Navy has 280 ships today, but some are nearing the end of their useful life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Missile defense spending, spurred by Trump and supported by lawmakers over fears of North Korea's accelerated ballistic missile and nuclear programs, would increase about 25 percent over the Obama administration's last projected numbers for fiscal 2019 to $9.92 billion, or $1.91 billion more than previously planned. It would bankroll 20 new interceptor missiles and silos, a new "homeland defense radar" in Hawaii and, for the first time, a "salvo" test to fire two interceptors at once at an incoming target.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Trump plan calls for adding 24 Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet jets in fiscal 2019, and 110 jets through 2023, as previously reported by Bloomberg News. The Obama administration had proposed ending purchases of the plane this year.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Pentagon is requesting funding for 77 F-35s for fiscal 2019, three fewer than projected in the the last Obama plan. The Trump plan projects 84 of the fighters for fiscal 2020, the same as the last Obama plan, and 98 in 2021, or one fewer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In addition, the Air Force plans $16.8 billion in funding through 2023 for the new B-21 bomber being built by Northrop Grumman Corp., including $2.3 billion next year for continued research.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The $686 billion includes $597.1 billion in base defense funding the most ever if enacted plus $89 billion in a war-fighting account. Of the $89 billion, $17 billion would finance readiness requirements "and other support activities" normally funded in the base budget, the Pentagon said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The combined total falls short of the Obama administration's post-Cold War peak of $691 billion in fiscal 2010, which included $163 billion in war spending. Trump's overall national security package which includes Energy Department nuclear weapons programs and defense-related activities at the FBI and smaller agencies would total $716 billion.[/FONT]
Growth Trajectory'
[FONT=&]Even as the Pentagon unveils the administration's proposed defense budget, Congress has yet to complete a funding bill for the current fiscal year. Last week's budget agreement removed spending caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act for this year and fiscal 2019, only to have them return in fiscal 2020 and 2021 unless another deal is reached. Last week's relief marked the fourth such agreement since the Budget Control Act was passed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"The real story" of the fiscal 2019 defense request is "the growth trajectory from" the 2017 defense bill that was enacted "as opposed to 2019 in isolation," Mackenzie Eaglen, a budget analyst for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in an email.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Not counting war spending, the base defense budget will have increased 17.4 percent in nominal terms from 2017 to 2019, she said. Including the war spending, the budget plan approved by Congress provides for an increase of 2.9 percent from fiscal 2018 to 2019, she said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Fred Bartels, the Heritage Foundation's defense budget analyst, said in an email that "this budget deal is going to provide a relief for the 18 months between March 24 and September 30, 2019. But as soon as it expires we are back at the same place."[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The new National Defense Strategy "calls for a sustained, predictable and increased budget to be able to execute the strategy," he said, so "being able to make the defense budget sustained and predictable will be dependent on future Congresses."[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The budget requests $6.5 billion for what's now being called the "European Deterrence Initiative," up from $4.7 billion requested last year, to increase the U.S. military presence in Europe, conduct more exercises with NATO partners and preposition equipment. It was previously called the "European Reassurance Initiative."[/FONT]
Missile Defense
[FONT=&]The top contractors that would benefit from the proposed increase in missile-defense spending are Boeing, Raytheon Co., Orbital ATK Inc., Northrop Grumman, Lockheed and Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Missile Defense Agency's five-year plan projects $46.7 billion through 2023, $13.7 billion more than the last Obama plan that covered the five years through 2022.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]For fiscal 2019 the MDA request is:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $6.8 billion for research, or about $1 billion more than previously planned, including programs to defend against hypersonic weapons under development by China and Russia.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $2.4 billion, or $855 million more than planned, for procurement including 20 additional interceptors from Orbital ATK, 42 more Standard Missiles from Raytheon, a redesigned hit-to-kill warhead to deploy by 2021 and additional silo construction at Fort Greely in Alaska.[/FONT]
Navy Expansion
[FONT=&]The Navy's five-year ship building plan calls for 111 vessels through 2023, going from 18 next year to 25 by 2023. The plan includes six new, better-armed frigates instead of the lightly armored Littoral Combat Ship; the first frigate would be bought in 2020[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Navy's $58.5 billion fiscal 2019 procurement plan would benefit shipbuilders General Dynamics Corp., Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and combat system suppliers Raytheon, Lockheed and BAE Systems PLC. It calls for buying:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* 18 combat and auxiliary vessels, including continuing purchase of two Virginia-class submarines, three DDG-51 destroyers, one Littoral Combat Ship that's likely to be the last and five ship-to-shore connectors designed to move weapons systems, equipment and personnel to shore in support of an assault. Altogether, $21 .9 billion is earmarked for ship construction, which includes 10 new warships.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* 29 F-35C and B model F-35 jets, 24 Advanced E-2D Hawkeye surveillance aircraft, 19 P-8 Maritime surveillance planes, 23 KC-130J refueling tankers, eight CH-53K heavy lift helicopters and three Triton surveillance drones. The Navy plans to buy 198 F-35s through 2023. Also, the Marine Corps plans to buy 69 CH-53K choppers made by Lockheed's Sikorsky helicopter unit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* 90 Small Diameter Bomb-II models made by Raytheon that can hit stationary and moving targets, toward a total of 3,750 through 2023, and 125 of Raytheon's Standard missile-6 multi-mission weapon toward a total of 625 through 2023.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* 112 Raytheon Tomahawk missiles would be upgraded, toward a total of 1,046 through 2023.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* 25 Lockheed long-range anti-ship missiles, and 75 through 2023.[/FONT]
Air Force Stable
[FONT=&]The Air Force would maintain stable budgeting for its planned major aircraft, including purchases, upgrades and maintenance:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $7.2 billion to buy 48 F-35 jets next year, the initial installment of $40 billion for 258 F-35s through 2023. The Air Force, the F-35's biggest customer, plans to buy another 48 fighters in 2020 and 54 each through fiscal 2021-2023; Air Force officials have said they needed 60 a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $3.6 billion for continued Boeing KC-46 tanker procurement for 15 aircraft toward a goal of $20 billion and 75 aircraft through 2023.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $2.75 billion for continued operations and support and upgrades of Lockheed's F-22 stealth fighters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $2.3 billion for continued B-21 development, up from $2 billion this year, or $16.8 billion through 2023; Northrop Grumman would see the first procurement dollars in fiscal 2022.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $964 million for continued upkeep of the aging A-10 "Warthog" close air support attack plane. The Air Force wanted to retire it but Congress refused. The service budgets $4.3 billion through 2023.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]* $1.1 billion to purchase 43,594 GPS-guided tail-kits from Boeing for the Jdam smart bomb, up from $834 million and 34,529 requested for this year.
And then there's his cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-...m-jong-un/
[/FONT]
FOR ONCE, Donald Trump has a point. "We can't let a madman with nuclear weapons let on the loose like that," he told Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, according to the transcript from their bizarre phone conversation that was leaked to The Intercept in May.
The madman the U.S. president was referring to, of course, was North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The madman the rest of us should be worried about, however, is Trump himself, who lest we forget has the sole, exclusive and unrestricted power to launch almost 1,000 nuclear warheads in a matter of minutes, should he so wish.
Most nonproliferation experts as well as former President Jimmy Carterand a number of former Pentagon and State Department officials, both Republican and Democrat agree that the brutal and murderous Kim, for all his bluster, is not irrational or suicidal, but bent on preserving his regime and preventing a U.S. attack. Nuclear weapons are a defensive, not an offensive, tool for the North Korean leadership which, as Bill Clinton's defense secretary William Perry observed on Fox News in April, may be "ruthless and … reckless" but "they are not crazy."
Got that? Kim is bad, not mad.
The same cannot be said of The Donald. Think I'm being unfair? In February, a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers wrote to the New York Times "that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump's speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president." In April, another group of mental health experts told a conference at Yale University's School of Medicine that Trump was "paranoid" and "delusional" and referred to the president's "dangerous mental illness."
Is it any wonder then that so many recent reports suggest that South Koreans are more worried about Trump than they are about the threat posed by their hostile and paranoid neighbor?
People watch a broadcast displaying U.S. President Donald Trump on a screen at a train station in Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2017.
Photo: Lee Jin-man/AP
Consider Trump's reaction this week to a confidential U.S. intelligence assessment leaked to the Washington Post that the DPRK is now able to construct a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles. "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States," the president declaimed, in response to a reporter's question at his Bedminster Golf Club on Tuesday. "They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state. And as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."
How is this not an unhinged response from the so-called Leader of the Free World? In May, he said he would be "honored" to meet with Kim and praised him as a "pretty smart cookie." In August, he took a break from his golfing vacation to casually threaten nuclear annihilation of Kim's country (not even on the basis of any aggression by the DPRK, incidentally, but only their "threats").
Does Trump understand the difference between escalating and de-escalating a nuclear crisis? Listen to Republican Senator John McCain, who has never met a "rogue nation" he did not want to bomb, invade or occupy. "I take exception to the president's words," McCain said on Tuesday, adding: "That kind of rhetoric, I'm not sure how it helps."
I mean, just how crazy do you have to be to advocate a preemptive nuclear strike that even McCain cannot get behind?
Trump has form, though, when it comes to loose talk about nukes. During the presidential campaign, in August 2016, MSNBC host and ex-Republican congressman Joe Scarborough revealed that Trump, over the course of an hour-long briefing with a senior foreign policy adviser, had asked three times about the use of nuclear weapons. At one point during the meeting, according to Scarborough, the then-GOP presidential candidate asked his adviser, "If we had them, why can't we use them?"
[URL="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/08/donald-trump-kim-jong-un-nuclear-warheads-1502290059.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90"]
[/URL]Coverage of an ICBM missile test is displayed on a screen in a public square in Pyongyang on July 29, 2017. Kim Jong-un boasted of North Korea's ability to strike any target in the U.S. after an ICBM test that weapons experts said could even bring New York into range.
To be so blasé, enthusiastic even, about the deployment of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction is a stark indicator of Trump's childishness, ignorance, belligerence, and, yes, derangement. Here is a president who is impulsive, erratic, unstable; whose entire life and career have been defined by a complete lack of empathy. Remember his strategy for defeating ISIS? "Bomb the shit out of 'em" and "take out their families."
So do you think civilian casualties were on his mind when he issued his "fire and fury" warning? Come. Off. It.
Listen to McCain's fellow Republican super-hawk Senator Lindsay Graham. "If there's going to be a war to stop [Kim], it will be over there," Graham told NBC's Matt Lauer last week, recounting a recent conversation he had with the president. "If thousands die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here and he's told me that to my face."
"This is madness," Kingston Reif, a nuclear disarmament specialist at the Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham's re-telling of Trump's remarks. "Unhinged madness."
Remember that 72 years ago today, the United States dropped the second atomic bomb on Japan, killing around 39,000 people in Nagasaki. Three days earlier, the first A-bomb killed around 66,000 people in Hiroshima. But a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula would make those strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like pinpricks. Experts say even a conventional war between the U.S. and the DPRK could kill more than 1 million people; a nuclear exchange, therefore, might result in tens of millions of casualties. Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, has admitted that such a preemptive strike by the U.S. would be a "humanitarian catastrophe."
Does the president care? Graham doesn't seem to think so. Trump's former ghostwriter Tony Schwartz, who spent 18 months in his company while working on The Art of the Deal, has called the president a "sociopath." In fact, one quote more than any other stood out from Schwartz's much-discussed interview with the New Yorker in July 2016 and, perhaps, should keep us all awake at night. "I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes," said Schwartz, "there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization."
We can't say we weren't warned.
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]