Hillary sick?

[Magda Hassan]

Thanks for posting that Cliff. He comes across as more in control of himself than Hilary and Biden. He talks of disbanding NATO. More thoughtful and less braggadocious than either of them. Not as scary as them by a long shot. Not sure that was your intention though.

Keeping the option open to drop a nuke on Europe impresses you as someone in control?

You must have loved it when he said he'd attack any Iranian ship whose sailors made taunts.

Or when he said the US of A was entitled to seize Iraqi oil fields.

Or when he said the capitol of Israel should be Jerusalem.

Or that Islam hates the West.

Or that Japan, So Korea and Saudi Arabia should have nukes.

Or his current 4-day battle over a woman's ideal weight...

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/donald-t...sidential/

Oh, come on now. Really? Where have you been the last few decades?
All this can be said of the Democrats too.
Didn't see Hilary disclaim doing the same thing. All cards are on her table too.
They have already been busy arming all these rogue states like Saudi Arabia and South Korea. They didn't even veto having Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council at the UN.
The USA already has Iraq's oil. And are trying to get Syria's oil now.
They all want Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.
Yes Trump is a misogynist. And I can't wait to see what Hilary will do for her sisters in Saudi Arabia. But pretty sure she will do sweet FA and not refuse to sell arms to Saudi Arabia until they have liberated their women.
Trump wont worry about the Iranians, taunts or otherwise, because the Iranians are too busy working with Russia and preventing WW3. Which Hilary and her hand picked bunch of hawks are certainly not.

Next!

[Michael Barwell]

There's a marginally interesting bit on the alleged disparity in reporting of ClintonH & TrumpD on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07x4ptl/newswatch-30092016 from 3:30. Seems to me, Trumps the pissboy-of-choice' for the media (BBC's damn good at bullshit-between-the-lines). The BBC seem to spend a lot of time saying Trumps a misogynist', casually, then uinterview a load of female voters who support him with not 1 jot of a raised eyebrow in their direction. When Segaline Royale (sp) was standing en Francais, the news was very very focused on her, particularly by the airplane blondes, then when she didn't win, she was entirely dropped. It does seem to me that there's a strong current of a vagenda' positive discrimination'. I tend to see ppl as ppl; that there's a black police officers' union seems to me to be entirely crass a white police officers' union would be entirely unacceptable, but like a lot, it's a one-way street, often.

On this same prog, at 2:40, there's an interesting one that I long ago picked-up on, a weird mawkish delight in sexual crimes: the prog Cracker' was all about the sex-crime murders of young women, and the media bods raved about it. I've known women who like this stuff in crime fiction and they're only people almost normal' even (…), not gender-jihadis.

When this lass was abducted a few days ago, in Brit, the BBC spent half (15mins) of the next news program on it; now it's pretty much been dropped as they still have almost precisely fuck-all to report, but there was that current of a thrill to it, as & when-. "Raped" or not raped? They don't seem to know themselves, just like the sound of their own voice saying it - this is getting on to that 'bankrupting of the term'.

It very much reminds me of the psycho-sexual klepto-parasites of the shitehound verbande they're always with me in the bath/shower, letting me know they're there with neuralgics & auditories. Last time I took a look at my chap, I set-off a siren in Woodlands Road, & how sodding noisy are they when I'm feeding the ducks (by which I mean, debunking & refusing the surveillance doctrine)... Every time I used to have a bath in Newcastle, I'd get those cognitive whispers' (see The Sorcerers' same thing) about being put-up on a gay dating site in realtime, and then there was that loooong spate of them congratulating me on what a loverly cock I had under a microscope with tweezers.

I think it's something to do with level playing fields.

Trump's missing a trick he should go back to "I'm rich they can't buy me I'll reform this corrupt system"; this is where his initial impetus lay, I think.

[Paul Rigby]

Published on Sep 29, 2016
A composite of short videos showing Clinton and her team cheating before, during and after the debate.

[video=youtube_share;CDbphpn4_Mg]http://youtu.be/CDbphpn4_Mg[/video]

[Cliff Varnell]

Agent Orange supports war crimes. What is sicker than that?

[Paul Rigby]

Here, the robot's volume control goes haywire just as an attempt is made to sound passionate about union rights:

[video=youtube_share;0EyoKB3ZHSc]http://youtu.be/0EyoKB3ZHSc[/video]

I am beginning to wonder at the loyalty of the robot's programmers.

Truly. This video is a really odd thing to have released to the public, on a number of levels.

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2016

Why the Deep State Is Dumping Hillary

Charles Hugh Smith

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.uk/2...llary.html

The governed are ready for a period of retrenchment, consolidation and diplomatic solutions to unwinnable conflicts, as imperfect as the peace might be to hawks.

Are you open to a somewhat unconventional perspective on this election? If so, read on. If you're absolutely confident you know all there is know about this election (good vs evil, Democrat vs. Republican, etc.), well then let's compare notes in five years and see which context provided more insight into the future.

In the context presented here, the personalities of the two candidates matter less than their perceived role in the changing of the Imperial Order. Let's start with a quick overview of the relationships between each political party and the Deep State--the unelected power centers of the central government that continue on regardless of which person or party is in elected office.

Liberal Democrats have always been uneasy bedfellows with the Deep State.Republican President Eisenhower had the political and military gravitas to put limits on the Military-Industrial wing of the Deep State, so much so that Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy claimed the U.S. had fallen behind the U.S.S.R. militarily in the 1960 presidential election (the infamous "missile gap").

Eisenhower was a cautious Cold War leader, wary of hot wars, wars of conquest, and the inevitable burden of conquest, nation-building. The military was best left sheathed in his view, and careful diplomacy was sufficient to pursue America's interests.

Kennedy entered office as a foreign policy hawk who was going to out-hawk the cautious Republicans. A brush with C.I.A. cowboys (the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba) and a taste of Imperial meddling in distant, poorly understood lands (Vietnam) increased his interest in peace and reduced his enthusiasm for foreign adventurism.

Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most activist liberal Democrat of the era, was not about to be out-hawked by the Republicans, and so he followed an expansive Imperial agenda into the 10-year quagmire of Vietnam.
Since the immense global enterprise known as World War II had taken less than four years to win, Americans had little patience for low-intensity wars that dragged on inconclusively for years while combat deaths mounted into the tens of thousands.

Liberal Democrats could find no easy political ground between the pressure to out-hawk the Republicans and the demands of an expansive Cold War Deep State. Both liberal Democratic presidents between 1965 and 1980, Johnson and Jimmy Carter, were one-term presidents, undermined by military/foreign entanglements.

The Republicans were given a freer hand; Nixon unleashed the B-52s on Hanoi in late 1972 until the North Vietnamese ran out of Soviet-supplied SAMs (surface to air missiles). Given a choice between a brokered peace or a flattened capital, they chose peace, and Nixon was free to declare victory and pull the majority of remaining American forces out of Southeast Asia.

The disastrous defeat in Vietnam of expansive Imperial ambitions (nation-building, etc.) led to an era of retrenchment and consolidation. Other than "splendid little wars" in Grenada and Panama and supporting proxies such as the Contras, the 1980s were years not of Imperial expansion but of Cold war diplomacy.

Republican President Reagan was also given a free hand to be a peacemaker, overseeing the fatal erosion of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the long, costly Cold War. President Bush Senior was a cautious Cold War leader, careful not to alienate the post-U.S.S.R. Russians and wary of over-reach and quagmires even in the new Unipolar world of unrivaled U.S. power.

The era's one hot war, Desert Storm, restored the sovereignty of Kuwait but left Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. Bush and his inner circle (and the Deep State they represented) were mindful of the lessons of Vietnam: Imperial over-reach led to costly, drawn-out failures of nation-building in the name of exporting democracy.

Though it was poorly understood by the public, Desert Storm played to American military strengths: a high-intensity conflict with concentrated forces, maneuver warfare with heavy armor protected by absolute air superiority, aided by proximity to allied bases and aircraft carrier groups. If you designed a war optimized to American military strengths, it would look much like Desert Storm. No wonder it was one of the most lopsided victories in history, with most American casualties resulting from random Scud missile strikes and accidents.

The end of the Cold War and victory in Iraq left the Republicans without their hawkish agenda and political raison d'etre, and Ross Perot's third-party movement in 1992 effectively delivered the presidency to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Clinton was blessed with a booming domestic economy and a peace dividend from the end of the Cold war. Though Clinton reportedly hankered for a great crisis he could exploit to burnish his place in the history books, alas none arose, and the 20th century ended with a decided absence of existential threats to the U.S. or even U.S. interests.

The incredible success of Desert Storm and the temptations of Unipolar Power birthed an expansionist, activist Imperial doctrine (neoconservatism) and a Deep State enthusiasm for flexing America's unrivaled power. What better place to put these doctrines into practice than Iraq, a thorn in the Imperial side since Desert Storm in 1991.

Alas, Bush Junior and his clique of doctrinaire neoconservatives had little grasp of the limits and trade-offs of military tactics and strategies, and they confused the optimization of Desert Storm with universal superiority in any and all conflicts.

But as veterans of Vietnam knew, low-intensity war with diffused, irregular combatants is quite a different situation. Add in the shifting politics of Sunni and Shia, tribal allegiances, failed states and a post-colonial pot of simmering resentments and rivalries, and you get Iraq and Afghanistan, two quagmires that have already exceeded the cost and duration of the Vietnam quagmire.

A decade after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and 25 years after Vietnam, the Deep State was once again enamored of expansion, hot wars, conquest and nation-building. Fifteen years on, despite endless neocon PR and saber-rattling, the smarter and more adept elements of the Deep State have given up on expansion, hot wars, conquest and nation-building.

Even empires eventually taste the ashes of defeat when expansion and hubris-soaked ambitions lead to over-reach, over-extended military forces, and enemies who are not just undeterred but much stronger than when the over-confident expansion began.

In my view, the current era of U.S. history shares parallels with the Roman era of A.D. 9 and beyond, when a planned expansionist invasion of the Danube region in central Europe led to military defeats and insurgencies that took years of patient warfighting and diplomacy to quell.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. President Obama, nominally a liberal Democrat, has pursued an extension of the neocon Bush expansionism, with the key difference being Obama has relied more on proxies and drone strikes than on "boots on the ground." But the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan have not only persisted, they have expanded under Obama's watch into Syria and Libya.

War by drone and proxy is even more tempting than outright invasion, as American casualties are modest and the responsibilities for failure are (it is fervently hoped) easily sidestepped. Alas, fulfilling Imperial ambitions via proxies has its own set of limits and trade-offs; proxy wars only get the desired results in very specific circumstances.

The Democrats have out-hawked the Republicans for eight years, and the Deep State is in disarray. I have been writing about this for several years now:

Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014): http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar14/disu...e3-14.html

When we speak of the Deep State, this ruling Elite is generally assumed to be monolithic: of one mind, so to speak, unified in worldview, strategy and goals.

In my view, this is an over-simplification of a constantly shifting battleground of paradigms and political power between a number of factions and alliances within the Deep State. Disagreements are not publicized, of course, but they become apparent years after the conflict was resolved, usually by one faction winning the hearts and minds of decision-makers or consolidating the Deep State's group-think around their worldview and strategy.

Even the Deep State only rules with the consent of the governed. The wiser elements of the Deep State recall how the Vietnam War split the nation in two and exacerbated social upheaval. These elements recognize America is tired of Imperial expansion, quagmires, proxy wars and doomed nation-building.

This exhaustion with over-reach shares many parallels with 1968 America.

In this long view of Imperial expansion, defeat and retrenchment, Hillary is holding down the status quo fort of failed expansionism and proxy wars. Her ability to out-hawk the Republicans is unquestioned, and that is one of her problems:

Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016): http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/deep...y8-16.html

When the governed get tired of Imperial over-reach and expansion, they are willing to take chances just to get rid of the expansionist status quo. In this point in history, Hillary Clinton embodies the status quo. The differences in policy between her and the Obama administration are paper-thin: she is the status quo.

The governed are ready for a period of retrenchment, consolidation and diplomatic solutions to unwinnable conflicts, as imperfect as the peace might be to hawks.

For these reasons, the more adept elements of the Deep State have no choice but to dump Hillary. Empires fall not just from defeat in war with external enemies, but from the abandonment of expansionist Imperial burdens by the domestic populace.

Put another way: drones and proxies don't pay taxes

Beyond the doubts harboured by elements of the Deep State about Rodham, there lie deeper fears concerning the fitness of the American polity to give the military the tools it needs to sustain global dominance:

Why American Military Doctrine Is Doomed for Failure

FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 02.10.2016 | OPINION

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/20...ilure.html

An analysis of US generals' growing dissatisfaction with the political leadership in Washington sheds new light on the direction in which the American military machine is heading. In particular, it is interesting to observe the military planning for the future of the sea, air, space, cyberspace, and land forces.

At the end of the Cold War, the US armed forces found themselves without any real peer, causing them to gradually alter their strategy and investments in war and conflicts. They transitioned from being a large numerical force geared toward fighting opponents of a similar caliber (the USSR) in accordance with a specific military strategy, to a force focused on hybrid adversaries (regular or militia forces) or foes that were not their equal (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Libya). The US military accordingly proceeded to change its planning and tactics to satisfy the demands of the new tenants in the White House, the notorious Neoconservatives. What resulted was a military doctrine centered on the concept of a unipolar world and aimed at global domination.

Since the early 90s, policy-makers in Washington have had as their objective the utopian goal of global hegemony, and in order to accomplish this the US armed forces had to expand and create new control centers (USAFRICOM, USNORTHCOM), in addition to those already in existence (USEUCOM, USPACOM, USSOUTHCOM, USSOCOM, USSTRATCOM, USTRANSCOM), in every corner of the planet.

This is a typical example of imperial overreach, which has historically been the impetus for the collapse of several kingdoms and empires over the centuries.

The operational capabilities of the US military machine from the 90s to the mid-2000s remained more or less unchanged in every major conflict in which it was involved: Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. These were conflicts in which the defense forces of these nations could not hope to match the attacker's power. Weak air defences were a common denominator for all these nations a vulnerability that has always been the prerequisite for wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the US ability to attain air superiority and thus subsequently enjoy unchallenged air space.

Carpet bombing, coupled with the use of staggering numbers of cruise missiles, destroyed the anti-aircraft defenses of both countries, paving the way for massive ground or airborne invasions. One example still fresh in everyone's mind was the intensity of the US strike in the early days of the Iraq war in 2003, which brought unprecedented levels of death and destruction.

Yet despite this advantageous position, the number of dead American and allied soldiers during the years of occupation was enough to shock the American public, perhaps forever changing the perception of the military conflict. The consequences were predictable, with popular pressure forcing a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a significant reduction of the contingent stationed in Afghanistan.

After a 70-year history of warfare, the old strategy of bombing, invading, and occupying a conquered territory had outlived its usefulness.

Time to change. New Goal: World Domination

The pursuit of a new global strategy required changes. A numerically smaller force was now needed, which would could be deployed on short notice to any corner of the world. US military strategists began to develop plans for new operational training methods and procedures, based on rapid-reaction forces and the ability to reach any theater of war with ease. To this end, US special forces, drones used for reconnaissance and attack, and reliance on the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and National Security Agency (NSA) ended up almost totally replacing the previous approach and tactics that had been focused on protecting ground troops.

This organizational change, which allowed the regional command centers a high-degree of strategic and decision-making autonomy, increased the complexity of the American military machine on a devastating scale. The practical results of these transformations could be seen in the control centers' reduced ability to respond to external threats as a single military power under a single flag.

In less than 10 years the United States had gone from a largely ground force able to invade foreign countries with sizable numbers of troops - thanks to its uncontested mastery of the airspace - to an organized military force compartmentalized into small units, which has rarely been asked to intervene directly in a conflict. Thus there has been less emphasis on a search for means and technologies to protect soldiers on the battlefield.

Instead, air power has continued to be the decisive weapon in the war scenarios for several years, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. In 2011 in Libya, one of its latest demonstrations of air superiority, the power of the USAF, combined with that of its allies, provided the necessary cover allowing ground forces (consisting of terrorists who later invaded Syria and the Sinai Peninsula) to conquer and occupy that territory.

To an attentive observer, all these nations that have found themselves in the US military's crosshairs in recent years share a common characteristic, namely a pronounced inability to defend their own airspace. Once the skies were conquered, which provided protection for the troops during ground operations, most of the work was already done.

But this is a formula that has not always had a successful impact on the course of the fighting. Ukraine and Syria are proof, despite representing two very different scenarios.

A new situation

For entirely different reasons, the two scenarios have highlighted the shortcomings and the strategic and structural weaknesses of the unified military command. In the case of Syria, the air-defense capabilities of the forces loyal to Damascus, rated among the top ten in the world, forced analysts in Washington in 2013 to develop a strategy based on the need to destroy the air-defense systems with the use of numerous cruise missiles that were launched from their fleet in the Mediterranean. Unless the surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems are disabled, the USAF cannot operate with impunity above Syrian skies and risks heavy losses. Syrian anti-aircraft systems are still quite able to neutralize not only an air attack but also a cruise-missile barrage, making any US assault enormously expensive (each Tomahawk costs about a million dollars), counterproductive, and ineffective. This new situation prompted Obama to seek Moscow's help to avoid a conflict that would have caused more than one headache for the Pentagon.

In the case of Ukraine, control of the airspace was uncontested as the Donbass does not possess an air force that can rival that of the Ukrainian military, and thus the military plan was more focused on effective coordination between ground troops, heavy vehicles, and reconnaissance. The goal was to make tactical advances and to conquer the territories in dispute. Yet despite advisors sent from Washington and the technology offered by the United States (the NSA and NRO), Kiev's army suffered grim setbacks at the hands of irregular forces far more poorly armed in terms of quality and quantity.

Soon, a series of new situations began to unfold for the United States. Its inability to control the airspace over Syria or gain ground in Ukraine was symptomatic of a deeper malaise affecting the capabilities of the US military and its allies to fight certain battles.

Back to the old school

In the minds of US generals and military advisers, these developments were an unprecedented wake-up call. After 70 years of wars and conflicts, the US found itself for the first time in situations where it could neither afford the luxury of intervening directly (Ukraine) nor be able to provide a concrete solution that would reverse the situation on the battlefield (Syria). This was a cause for concern, forcing American political leaders to rethink their entire approach to military confrontation and to formulate a new strategy to face these new challenges.

In some public meetings conducted by General Robert Neller (Commandant of the Marine Corps) and General Joseph Dunford (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), both men have highlighted the most important challenge for the future of the United States military. They foresee a transformation, over just 15 years, into a military force capable of fighting not only enemies that are well equipped (as in Syria and Ukraine) but also on par with the US (Russia and China). It is a revolution, or more precisely, a return to the past.

In defining these challenges, Dunford spoke of what is referred to in military jargon as the "4+1," i.e., the nations that the US Strategic Command sees as posing major challenges over the next 10 years, in other words: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran + Terrorism. In describing this approach, Dunford has outlined a future war scenario mainly involving short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and ICBMs, respectively), anti-ballistic systems (ABMs), cyber attacks, and the ability to deny access or airspace (A2/AD).

What will surprise the reader is the admission by Neller and Dunford that the United States has some operational issues that could easily be exploited by opponents. Rival countries (peer competitors) have made technological strides in the past decade allowing them to almost close the gap with the US military in vital sectors for future war scenarios in many fields, such as the following:

Fifth-generation aircraft (J-31 and PAK FA) with stealth capabilities.

Long-range ballistic missiles (R-36M) and short-/medium-range missiles (Iskander).

ICBMs with supersonic speed (unable to be intercepted by current and future ABMs).

The ability to produce cybernetic damage with real-world effects.

Increasingly advanced technology to deny airspace to an opponent either electronically (EW) or mechanically (S-300, S-400, S-500).

In all these challenges we can see America's advantages being diminished. Another worrying aspect, of which both commanders are aware, is the need to have an Internet/intranet connection in order to operate at full capacity. The interconnection between men and means for the United States is a force multiplier, just as is the need to project power on enemy shores through naval forces. Strategies to deny these advantages are essential components of Russia's and China's military doctrines.

The new generation of anti-ship missiles (DF-26, BrahMos II, Qader and P-900) offer a clear example of how Beijing and Moscow are reacting to the steady degradation of the frameworks for global peace. If the US Navy is denied a radius of several hundred kilometers, which is needed in order to control ships and aircraft carriers close to an enemy coast, this is a big problem for American military planners. The anti-ship missiles also offer an economic advantage: they cost little but can sink ships worth billions of dollars. They are thus ideal for challenging the US Navy, whose unparalleled power can be seen in its 10 aircraft carriers. Furthering this strategy, Russia and China are working on beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles that, combined with stealth aircraft (J-20 and PAK FA), can deny the United States the essential ability to anticipate a lethal attack on its aircraft carriers that can be launched from a safe distance.

The goal for Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran is always the same: to keep Washington from being able to approach their shores or operate in international waters, in order to prevent the huge American aircraft carriers from being used as a launch pad for military operations.

In terms of strategic security, the protection of the skies is the first priority for any military planner. ABM systems, like Chinese or Russian S-300, S-400, and S-500s, are, as stated, designed with the goal of creating an impenetrable airspace for ICBMs and/or fourth- or fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Without air cover and naval platforms, the functional capabilities of any ground troops are drastically reduced. Add to this SRBMs such as Iskander missiles, which can wipe out whole platoons, and one can easily understand why Dunford is worried that he has already lost his technological and operational edge when faced with a competitor of similar stature.

Certainly the evolution of the American military-industrial complex (MIC) has not facilitated the task of the strategists at the Pentagon. Programs such as the F-35 (fifth-generation stealth aircraft) that were supposed to compete with equivalent Sino-Russian projects have been beset by numerous problems and massive cost overruns, probably the result of a widespread system of corruption, leaving the United States at a disadvantage in future contests for air supremacy.

Even the US nuclear arsenal (nuclear triad) could use some upgrades to keep it on par with Russia's, and those modernizations are estimated to cost about a trillion dollars over 10 years, a figure the US Treasury does not currently possess (without printing extra money, but that's another story). Recently Moscow conducted a long list of tests of its ballistic missiles that are capable of achieving unprecedented speed (Mach 6-7), able to change direction after launch, and which possess a significantly increased operating range (17,000 kms), making all current and future anti-ballistic systems ineffective and useless.

Closing the gap

Moscow and Beijing have practical considerations (but which are, in a way, almost philosophical) based on the enormous difference in their military spending compared to Washington. This has forced them to aim for inexpensive systems that are nevertheless just as effective.

A perfect example, already fully operational, is the development and use of Kalibr missiles - the Russian response to the US cruise missile. Similar to the American version, its main difference is that it can be fired from small ships. To understand Washington's level of anxiety, one need only analyze its reaction to the Black Sea launch of the first Kalibr missiles in 2015 toward targets in Syria. The Pentagon declared its surprise at Russia's "new" ability to launch such missiles at a distance of thousands of kilometers from such small ships (with consequently reduced costs). This inability to recognize an opponent's capabilities is perhaps symptomatic of underlying problems.

The Kalibr missiles allowed Moscow to gain a tactical advantage, which, according to US military advisers, changed the strategic balance in the Middle East. This was enough to dramatically reduce one of the US's largest advantages: cruise missiles. Top US advisors panicked, realizing they needed to immediately offer an adequate response to this new situation. Moreover, the strategy of equipping small ships with Kalibr missiles has allowed Moscow to produce a large number of corvettes, vastly expanding the total power of the Russian fleet. Moscow currently has quite a number of these ships, all armed in this way.

The United States prefers the opposite philosophical stance in terms of its projects. Long-term projects are being promoted that offer massive opportunities for price gouging and extra profits for contractors and brokers: stealth ships (USS Zumwalt), mega carriers (Gerald R. Ford class), and the F-35 are just a few examples. Without offering any immediate technological advances, especially in relation to the countermoves of the "4 + 1," it seems that this is where the moderization efforts of the US armed forces are focused.

Paradoxically, although the US cannot even deploy a few F-35s, nations such as North Korea and Iran already have strategies in place to use deterrence to nullify the current American operational supremacy. In this sense, despite sanctions and the international climate of hostility, Pyongyang has managed to produce a submarine equipped with nuclear SLBMs a big step forward that greatly expands its ability to deter the United States and South Korea. In Iran, the mass production of domestically developed weapons (Bavar-373) similar to the S-300 system (and just as effective) have been designed to deny any operational capacity over the skies of the Islamic Republic and its allies (Hezbollah and Syria) in the immediate future.

An impossible request

Washington is asking its generals to be prepared for a large-scale conflict with opponents of a stature equal to its own, but the reality behind the scenes is troubling, and the desperate cries of Dunford and Neller, appropriately kept hidden from the media, offer proof of this. Just a simple comparison of the military doctrines of China, Russia, and the United States in regard to their long-term trajectory - shows that Washington, although possessing a numerical advantage in terms of the forces and means at its disposal, lacks the necessary capability to properly unify the powerful components of the US military in order to dominate its rivals.

This is probably why General Dunford said recently that subsequent strategic plans by US armed forces will not be made public. Evidently, hiding these endemic weaknesses is necessary to avoid jeopardizing a cornerstone of the strategy of US forces: the ability to project power and intimidate opponents without having to take real action.

Conclusions and today's conflicts

Because they have effectively taken advantage of all the above factors, Russia, Iran, and their allies have attained the necessary skills to prevent direct US intervention in various contexts, from Ukraine to Syria.

In analyzing what has not worked in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, the US is blinded by the complexity of its military system and is focusing mostly on its inability to rapidly devise a workable strategy that is inexpensive in terms of human casualties. This is the main reason Washington has been forced to lean on outside actors to influence events on the ground (mercenary battalions in Ukraine and Salafis and Wahhabis in Syria). As we can see, these are all choices that do not pay off in the long run, instead allowing other rising powers to dominate the United States without necessarily resorting to a direct confrontation.

The wars of the third millennium AD also heavily rely on psychological factors and deterrence, as well as the essential ability to influence an opponent with false information. Take the example of Syria and the Russian intervention. No one at the Pentagon or CIA was able to predict Russia's air and naval deployment, which was accomplished in less than 48 hours. No one, least of all Dunford, was ready at the time with a well-defined plan to respond to this move. In addition to technical and organizational inefficiencies, there is a clearly inadequate ability to decipher an opponent's moves such as one does in chess. The ability to catch an opponent off guard has already proved its effectiveness in the conflict in Ukraine, in which Crimea was reunified with Russia without a shot being fired and with full popular support.

Dunford and Neller have grasped that any future battlefield will be a hostile environment in terms of air superiority, Internet connectivity, and the simultaneous management of resources across a broad geographical spectrum. It is a challenge with - by the general's own admission - a far from obvious outcome. Washington's policy, which is dominated by lobbies and corruption, requires an unprecedented turnaround in its military apparatus. But this is what is needed in order to meet the future challenges of a multipolar world with different nations (allied together) with capabilities equal to that of the US military machine.

The truth, which is difficult for US policymakers to accept, is that the current environment of the military-industrial complex (MIC) leaves little room to maneuver, given the gargantuan projects that are in place. The F-35 is unlikely to be put on hold while the project is completely revised and its actual ability to carry out the tasks required of a fifth-generation fighter reviewed. The same could be said about the development of expensive ships such as the USS Enterprise and USS Zumwalt, in which several hundred billion dollars have already been invested.

Military spending is an essential gear in the machine of the US system of oligarchy, but the consequences are starting to drag down the future military capabilities of the United States. Its rivals are catching up, using systems that are more advanced, more economical, and more effective, while also easier to use or replicate. The military leaders at the Pentagon are starting to show telling signs of impatience, calling for a transformation that will be difficult to achieve, since it will require a sea change in the country's top-brass establishment. The ultimate consequences are evidence of a pattern that is slowly draining Washington's wallet and greatly reducing the competitive advantage that Washington possesses.

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in red.

Thanks for posting that Cliff. He comes across as more in control of himself than Hilary and Biden. He talks of disbanding NATO. More thoughtful and less braggadocious than either of them. Not as scary as them by a long shot. Not sure that was your intention though.

Keeping the option open to drop a nuke on Europe impresses you as someone in control?

You must have loved it when he said he'd attack any Iranian ship whose sailors made taunts.

Or when he said the US of A was entitled to seize Iraqi oil fields.

Or when he said the capitol of Israel should be Jerusalem.

Or that Islam hates the West.

Or that Japan, So Korea and Saudi Arabia should have nukes.

Or his current 4-day battle over a woman's ideal weight...

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/donald-t...sidential/

Oh, come on now. Really? Where have you been the last few decades?

Just in the last two years a Democratic President negotiated the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iran and Syria.

The American War Party wanted to go to war with Iran and Syria and fought Obama all the way.

You don't see a difference between a policy of diplomacy and a policy of war?

All this can be said of the Democrats too.

Really?

What Democrat advocates arming Saudi Arabia, Japan and So. Korea with nukes?

What Democrat other than that clown Senator from New Jersey advocates for war with Iran?

What Democrat says Islam hates the West?

What Democrat advocates starting a hot war because some Iranian sailors flipped us off?

What Democrat advocates torture for torture's sake?

Didn't see Hilary disclaim doing the same thing.

All Democrats and lots of Republicans have denounced Trump's fascist belligerence.

All cards are on her table too.

No, Trump's insanity isn't on the table.

I have lots of problems with Clinton's foreign and domestic policies.

But Trump is the worst of America on steroids.

They have already been busy arming all these rogue states like Saudi Arabia and South Korea. They didn't even veto having Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council at the UN.

"They" being the UK and the USA, right?

The USA already has Iraq's oil. And are trying to get Syria's oil now.

"They" being the UK and the USA, right?

They all want Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.

"They" being the UK and the USA, right?

Yes Trump is a misogynist. And I can't wait to see what Hilary will do for her sisters in Saudi Arabia. But pretty sure she will do sweet FA and not refuse to sell arms to Saudi Arabia until they have liberated their women.

And because of that American women must surrender control over their reproductive organs to the State?

Thanx.

Trump wont worry about the Iranians, taunts or otherwise, because the Iranians are too busy working with Russia and preventing WW3.

You think the President of the United States runs the Anglo/American Security State?

Only 2 have ever bucked the War Party -- Kennedy and Obama.

By removing weapons of mass destruction from Iran and Syria Obama and Putin already prevented WW3.

Trump will do what he's told by the Dominionist wing of the Guns/Oil/Drugs War Party.

They've craved after war with Iran for decades.

Which Hilary and her hand picked bunch of hawks are certainly not.

If you think Trump isn't a super hawk drooling over the possibility of dropping a nuke you haven't been paying attention.

Next!

[Cliff Varnell]

"The first thing you have to do is get them to respect the West. And to respect us. And if they're not gonna respect us it's never gonna work."

Donald Trump promises slaughter and torture far above and beyond what the Anglo/American Security State is already inflicting.

[Paul Rigby]

Wall Street: The Trump-China missing link

by Pepe Escobar for RT

October 02, 2016

http://thesaker.is/24805/

The yuan is about to enter the IMF's basket of reserve currencies this coming Saturday alongside the US dollar, pound, euro and yen. This is no less than a geoeconomic earthquake.
Not only does this represent yet another step in China's irresistible path towards economic primacy; the Chinese currency's inclusion in the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket will also lead central banks and hyper-wealthy funds especially from the US to increasingly buy more Chinese assets.

At the first US presidential debate, Donald Trump took no prisoners, criticizing China's currency manipulation. This is what he said:

"You look at what China's doing to our country in terms of making our product, they're devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them… They're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing."

Well, China is not "making our product"; the manufacturing process is Made in China then exported to the US. Most of the profits benefit US corporations everything from design, licensing and royalties to advertising, financing and retail margins. If the mantras manage to spell out a partial truth the US has lost manufacturing jobs to China, China is the "factory of the world" they don't spell out the hidden truth that those who profit are essentially major corporations.

China does not "devalue their currency"; the People's Bank of China periodically adjusts the yuan according to a very narrow band. The major practitioners of quantitative easing (QE) are actually the US, as well as Japan and the European Central Bank (ECB). And the currency of global consumer goods manufacturing continues to be the US dollar, not the yuan.

Beijing also is not "using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China." This is all about balance of payments. What US consumers spend on Made in China products many of them delocalized by US corporations is pumped back to the US as capital inflows that keep interest rates down and help to support the Empire of Chaos's global hegemony.

Win-win, Wall Street-style

Trump's attention span is notoriously minimalist. If his advisers managed to imprint tweet? a few one-liners on his brain, he would be able to explain to US public opinion how the US-China game is really played, something that all relevant parties in both nations know by heart.

And the crucial missing link in the whole game is Wall Street.

This is how it works. A mighty hedge fund approaches a US corporation and/or large company with "an offer you can't refuse": Delocalize to China. This necessarily implies that all the company's assets are re-hypothecated on a double-entry ledger in Wall Street.

Wall Street "wins" both ways; either by financing the delocalization (and corresponding US job extinction) to China, or buying companies that refuse to delocalize.

Then they go for wage arbitrage concerning products that used to be Made in USA and are now Made in China; that concerns the huge wage gap between the US and China, which also factors the exchange rate between the US dollar and the yuan.

China for their part recycles their US dollars buying US Treasury Bills. This, of course, holds bond prices high, and that helps to keep US interest rates low.

Everything in fact is on a high; bond prices, the US dollar perceived value all over the world, the exchange rate. US dollars keep frantically entering the US economy, then in theory used to keep frantically buying Made in China products.

Of course the price of a Made in China product in the US is low and that is "incentive" enough for US companies to essentially keep Main Street USA unemployed. As Steve Jobs once famously proclaimed, "these jobs are not coming back".

The US dollar exchange rate will continue to be high as long as China and others recycle their excess US dollars to buy US Treasury Bills en masse. The crucial point is that these US dollars never enter the real economy. They are sort of "trapped" either in the extremely cozy upper strata of Wall Street casino capitalism or Too Big To Fail rarefied banking. And the Fed wants the game to go on indefinitely, to prevent a rate collapse.

Beijing for its part plays the game with relish; as the prime global export powerhouse, the agenda is to solidify and expand manufacturing know how on the way to achieve a status of "moderate income" nation by the start of the next decade.

The bottom line is that to recover US manufacturing jobs as Trump has been forcefully promising he will have to stare down the whole Wall Street finance oligarchy.

So no wonder these oligarchs responsible for shipping all those US manufacturing jobs to Asia and lavishly profiting from bailouts to the Too Big To Fail' racket hate him with all their golden-plated guts.

Hellfiring those Too Big to Fail

For all his incapacity to formulate thoughts above the language skills of a third grader, Trump has been piling up astonishing proposals that resonate wildly, way beyond the "basket of deplorables" spectrum.

He is against Cold War 2.0 and the pivot to Asia, when he says "wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?"

He no less than pre-empted WWIII when he said he would be against a US nuclear first-strike.

He totally abhors global "free trade" from NAFTA to TPP and TTIP because it has "hollowed out the lives of American workers", as US corporations (under Wall Street's "incentive") delocalize and then import back into the US tariff-free.

Trump was even open to nationalizing Wall Street banks after the 2008 financial crisis.

So we're faced with the ultimate surrealist spectacle of a billionaire denouncing corporate globalization, which has been responsible for stripping the US lower middle classes of countless, decent blue-collar jobs and social benefits not to mention turning them into hostages of rotting public infrastructure. And all that with absolutely no one among the US establishment condemning the most astonishing wealth transfer to the 0.0001% in history.

If in the next two presidential debates Trump points to the crucial missing link in the whole plot Wall Street he might as well lock on as a surefire winner.

[Cliff Varnell]

"I'm the least racist person you've ever encountered."

"I'd be the last one to use a nuclear weapon."

Donald Trump is a hard-core racist with a craving to nuke somebody non-white.

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in red.

Wall Street: The Trump-China missing link

by Pepe Escobar for RT

October 02, 2016

http://thesaker.is/24805/

The yuan is about to enter the IMF's basket of reserve currencies this coming Saturday alongside the US dollar, pound, euro and yen. This is no less than a geoeconomic earthquake.
Not only does this represent yet another step in China's irresistible path towards economic primacy; the Chinese currency's inclusion in the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket will also lead central banks and hyper-wealthy funds especially from the US to increasingly buy more Chinese assets.

At the first US presidential debate, Donald Trump took no prisoners, criticizing China's currency manipulation. This is what he said:

"You look at what China's doing to our country in terms of making our product, they're devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them… They're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing."

Well, China is not "making our product"; the manufacturing process is Made in China then exported to the US. Most of the profits benefit US corporations everything from design, licensing and royalties to advertising, financing and retail margins. If the mantras manage to spell out a partial truth the US has lost manufacturing jobs to China, China is the "factory of the world" they don't spell out the hidden truth that those who profit are essentially major corporations.

China does not "devalue their currency"; the People's Bank of China periodically adjusts the yuan according to a very narrow band. The major practitioners of quantitative easing (QE) are actually the US, as well as Japan and the European Central Bank (ECB). And the currency of global consumer goods manufacturing continues to be the US dollar, not the yuan.

Beijing also is not "using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China." This is all about balance of payments. What US consumers spend on Made in China products many of them delocalized by US corporations is pumped back to the US as capital inflows that keep interest rates down and help to support the Empire of Chaos's global hegemony.

Win-win, Wall Street-style

Trump's attention span is notoriously minimalist. If his advisers managed to imprint tweet? a few one-liners on his brain, he would be able to explain to US public opinion how the US-China game is really played, something that all relevant parties in both nations know by heart.

And the crucial missing link in the whole game is Wall Street.

This is how it works. A mighty hedge fund approaches a US corporation and/or large company with "an offer you can't refuse": Delocalize to China. This necessarily implies that all the company's assets are re-hypothecated on a double-entry ledger in Wall Street.

Wall Street "wins" both ways; either by financing the delocalization (and corresponding US job extinction) to China, or buying companies that refuse to delocalize.

Then they go for wage arbitrage concerning products that used to be Made in USA and are now Made in China; that concerns the huge wage gap between the US and China, which also factors the exchange rate between the US dollar and the yuan.

China for their part recycles their US dollars buying US Treasury Bills. This, of course, holds bond prices high, and that helps to keep US interest rates low.

Everything in fact is on a high; bond prices, the US dollar perceived value all over the world, the exchange rate. US dollars keep frantically entering the US economy, then in theory used to keep frantically buying Made in China products.

Of course the price of a Made in China product in the US is low and that is "incentive" enough for US companies to essentially keep Main Street USA unemployed. As Steve Jobs once famously proclaimed, "these jobs are not coming back".

The US dollar exchange rate will continue to be high as long as China and others recycle their excess US dollars to buy US Treasury Bills en masse. The crucial point is that these US dollars never enter the real economy. They are sort of "trapped" either in the extremely cozy upper strata of Wall Street casino capitalism or Too Big To Fail rarefied banking. And the Fed wants the game to go on indefinitely, to prevent a rate collapse.

Beijing for its part plays the game with relish; as the prime global export powerhouse, the agenda is to solidify and expand manufacturing know how on the way to achieve a status of "moderate income" nation by the start of the next decade.

The bottom line is that to recover US manufacturing jobs as Trump has been forcefully promising he will have to stare down the whole Wall Street finance oligarchy.

So no wonder these oligarchs responsible for shipping all those US manufacturing jobs to Asia and lavishly profiting from bailouts to the Too Big To Fail' racket hate him with all their golden-plated guts.

Hellfiring those Too Big to Fail

For all his incapacity to formulate thoughts above the language skills of a third grader, Trump has been piling up astonishing proposals that resonate wildly, way beyond the "basket of deplorables" spectrum.

He is against Cold War 2.0 and the pivot to Asia, when he says "wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?"

He no less than pre-empted WWIII when he said he would be against a US nuclear first-strike.

Good article up to this point but that last bit is pure bullshit.

The same sentence Trump said he wouldn't use nukes he instantly back-tracked (his MO, if you haven't noticed) and said he wouldn't take anything off the table.

One needs to be able to read Trump's lies.

He always presents himself as the best of all.

That's when he's lying the hardest.

"I'm the least racist" and "I'd be the last person to use nukes" are lies -- it's a con, y'all!

He totally abhors global "free trade" from NAFTA to TPP and TTIP because it has "hollowed out the lives of American workers", as US corporations (under Wall Street's "incentive") delocalize and then import back into the US tariff-free.

No, Donald Trump only abhors bad things that happen to Donald Trump.

The author of this piece is under the impression Trump actually has an ideology or a knowledge of broader economic issues.

He's wrong.

Trump was even open to nationalizing Wall Street banks after the 2008 financial crisis.

He's lying! He says what he thinks people want to hear.

He's totally committed to Paul Ryan's Republican economic agenda which is more friendly to the banks than the Democrats.

So we're faced with the ultimate surrealist spectacle of a billionaire denouncing corporate globalization,

It's a con! It's bullshit. He's only denouncing anything folks want denounced.

which has been responsible for stripping the US lower middle classes of countless, decent blue-collar jobs and social benefits not to mention turning them into hostages of rotting public infrastructure.


No, it's Republican austerity policies starting with Nixon and accelerated under Reagan which has decimated the middle-class twice over.

Republicans constantly attack the social safety net, an economically ignorant ideology of devastating consequence.


And all that with absolutely no one among the US establishment condemning the most astonishing wealth transfer to the 0.0001% in history.

Trump would accelerate this transfer of wealth.

That's the GOP economic program -- more tax cuts for the rich, de-fund the social safety net.

If in the next two presidential debates Trump points to the crucial missing link in the whole plot Wall Street he might as well lock on as a surefire winner.