Yves here. While this post by Thomas Neuburger extensively quotes an interview of former Lt. Colonel Larry Wilkerson by Andrew Napolitano, I don’t see the inference drawn here, of a coup, as correct. Yes, narrowly speaking, the Biden climbdown and anger is apparently due to him being told “no” by the US military. But this is not defiance in the sense that Neuburger appears to appreciate. Biden has repeatedly made very loud statement to the effect that “We’re the United States. We have the most powerful military in the world. There is no limit as to what we can do.”
An alternate view is that someone managed to get through Biden’s thick skull that the US could not win against either Russia or Iran (the latter has been a finding of repeated war games) in a conventional war, and the consequences of the US escalating and losing would be worse than backing off. Another confirmation of this theory is that other reports suggest Jake Sullivan supported the US military’s position, meaning Biden had opposition from key members of his team, and not just the armed forces.
However, a different way of squaring this circle is to recognize the US presidents have not, for a very long time, been much in charge of US foreign policy. In the Oliver Stone documentary which presented roughly four hours of interviews with Putin, Putin described how Bush had made commitments to him which would have greatly improved US-Russia relations, only to go silent when Russia followed up and then issue a bafflegabish written reversal, IIRC 18 months later. Putin saw similar inability to deliver on negotiated proposals by later Presidents. He concluded the bureaucracy was running the show.
A test of the Wilkerson and Neuburger thesis is whether the US eventually authorizes long-range missile strikes on Russia. That happening would disprove the Neuburger thesis, but continued refusal to do so is not dispositive proof otherwise. It must be pointed out that the explanation offered by Lloyd Austin, that Russia had moved worthwhile military targets, as in aircraft, out of range, is likely true. Note that Simplicius points out in a new piece that the successful attack on the Tver ammo storage facilities were done by jet drones and the facility was in fact out of range of ATACMS or Storm Shadow missiles.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
—Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 2
I found the following news via a piece at Ian Welsh’s site, and it struck me as important. While I don’t want to overplay what it implies, I don’t want to underplay it either.
An American Coup?
In a 30-minute interview with Judge Napolitano on September 18, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and critic of America’s wars, described a recent event in which Pentagon chief Gen. Lloyd Austin told President Biden that, in Wilkerson’s words, “the Pentagon has taken over, essentially, diplomacy as well as any action, militarily speaking, with regard to both theaters of war,” meaning Ukraine and Israel.
Wilkerson added, “And so they’re now in charge.” Austin, according to this telling, listened “to the people in the bowels of the Pentagon who know the truth” and forced the President to back down.
Biden was furious, we’re told, but “took that advice.” Except, as Wilkerson tells it, it wasn’t advice, but instruction. “No dice,” as Wilkerson characterized the message, sounds pretty final.
This is good news and bad news. The good, U.S. policy is now:
- To Netanyahu, if you invade Lebanon or attack Iran, you’re on your own.
- To Zelenskyy, no to long range missiles reaching deep into Russia.
So we and the world are safer, at least for a while.
The bad: Is this a coup? Has the military stood up to the President, forced him to change policy?
If the answers are yes, we’re on our way once more to revising the Constitution-as-practiced. Both political parties have already confirmed that the Fourth Amendment can be ignored. That’s now the “new normal.” So what’s this encroachment of the Pentagon into foreign policy, if not another “new normal”? Has MacArthur finally won?
Whatever the truth, you won’t see this reported in what people call the “news,” but I doubt Wilkerson’s sources are wrong. At any rate, we’ll know soon enough by the way Zelenskyy and Netanyahu act.
Welcome to the future of U.S. foreign policy.
The Wilkerson Exchange in Full
The video at the top contains the full Wilkerson interview, cued to start at the conversation about Austin and Biden. I’ve also printed that exchange below, lightly edited. Emphasis is that of the speaker.
Wilkerson: I think what we’re seeing here is another attempt, because a 100-plane strike didn’t do it, by Netanyahu to provoke Hezbollah to some sort of action that he can then declare is warlike to the extent that he can do what he wants to do with them — even though I’m told with great confidence in the sources that the latest two visits by the Central Command Unified Commander were to tell him [Netanyahu] that we would not be with him in the event of his going to war with Hezbollah that he provoked. Nor will we be with him going to war with Iran that he provoked. And we made it quite clear that we would know if he provoked it.
Napolitano: You’re speaking of General Kurilla [CENTCOM commander since April 2022].
Wilkerson: Yes. Yes.
Napolitano: So Scott Ritter agrees with you, Doug Macgregor says he can’t imagine Austin and Blinkin letting General Kuralla do that. It’s very very interesting. … Is this speculation on your part or is it based on sources?
Wilkerson: It’s based on some pretty reliable sources. And here’s the bigger picture and I hope the others told you this too. Biden’s fury — and you could see it — he was seething when he met with the British Prime Minister.
Napolitano: Yes, yes, we have that clip. He was out of control with anger.
Wilkerson: And what he [had] just been told, apparently, was by the Pentagon, “No dice, Mr President. No dice on Ukraine and no dice on Gaza. We’re in charge now.”
Napolitano: No dice. You’re talking about no dice on the long range missiles reaching deep into Russia, even though Tony Blinkin had intimated all week in Kyiv with his British counterpart that this was happening. And Sir Keir Stormer, the British Prime Minister, had every reason to believe as he’s flying across the Atlantic that Joe Biden’s answer would be yes.
Wilkerson: He was embarrassed. He was embarrassed by the fact — he was pulling out his maps with target data and Biden told him, “Don’t even pull them out. We’re not going to talk about that.”
I’ve been told, again by fairly reliable sources, that Blinkin and Sullivan — Blinkin primarily, but Sullivan too — have been sidetracked, and what’s happened is the Pentagon has taken over, essentially, diplomacy as well as any action, militarily speaking, with regard to both theaters of war.
And so they’re now in charge.
I have to change my evaluation of Secretary Austin if that’s the case, because it means he listened finally to the people in the bowels of the Pentagon who know the truth, and he’s reacting to that, and he’s told the President Biden that, and to Biden’s credit, even though he was furious, he finally took that advice.
Napolitano: Colonel, you once ran the State Department [as Secretary Colin Powell’s chief of staff under George Bush]. How does the Defense Department engage in diplomacy?
Wilkerson: They engage in diplomacy every day. Every day. There are four-stars in the various syncdoms, the regions that they control, the AORs [Areas of Responsibility] [who] are the true U.S. diplomats. And some of them are very good at it. I saw some of them. I worked with some of them who are very good at it, better than any Secretary of State.
But it shouldn’t be that way. That’s a parenthetical remark. We shouldn’t have the military leading diplomacy. But we often do.
And the Japanese prime minister once told me why to my face. He said, “Larry, when your East Asia and Pacific Assistant Secretary comes out here, he’s not got anything but his briefcase. When the man from Honolulu comes out here, from Camp Smith in Hawaii, he’s towing air wings, submarines, battle groups, Marine amphibious groups, Army divisions. I listened to him. This is the Prime Minister of Japan.
Napolitano: Who told General Kurilla to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu, “If you invade Lebanon, you’re on your own?”
Wilkerson: It was, I think, Austin. But that’s the chain of command. Austin conveyed that message to him [Kurilla]. But I think it was Austin that convinced Biden to give him that command so he could transmit it to Kurilla.
112 comments
Comments are closed.
Eye-opening information & analysis! Big thanks to Alexander Mercouris for alerting me to this terrific article / (& naked capitalism site, in general).
I agree that “we’re on our way once more to revising the Constitution-as-practiced,” doesn’t really follow. In the intro Yves mentions prior evidence that the bureaucracy runs the show. But it’s also to be expected that a political premier would clash with her or his military chief like this.
Political inertia explains all the so-called doubling down we’ve noted here including the deliveries of, permissions to use, and support with fancy Western weapons. Politicians don’t easily change their tune when they have been singing for two and a half years that Ukraine is the Free World and will prevail. That inertia has finally had its collision with a reality that the Pentagon has explained to Biden. Of course he’s angry. But it’s not a coup for Austin to explain it to Biden or for Biden to be angry while accepting that he has no farther non-nuclear escalations.
All these kinds of comments assume that “the President” has any power to actually set and conduct the “policy,” the day to day and longer-term behavior, of the thing we reign as “the United States” or more disappointingly, “the Empire.”
I’d say it is silly to still believe that Biden the “elected” husk is anything more than a possibly incontinent chair-sitter. And now dear Jill is chairing Cabinet meetings in his stead. We are in Marcos territory now, as in the serial dictatorship in the Philippines. Where it was once said by a US senator, in the run up to Imperial US colonization of that place, “We are going to take Manila and build it up, up, up until it is just like Kansas City,” or words to that effect. And KC I believe has historically and latterly been a Machine-run city, where as in the US at large, the “will of the people” is less than a f@rt in a hurricane.
Hey, has anybody got an accurate and current and honest Organizational Chart for the once upon a time Republic?
Victory! for the Owners — quelle surprise.
You ridicule the assumptions in Yves and Neuburger’s texts, which adopted, as much as my comment.
The division might not be between the bureaucracy and the President but within different arms of such bureaucracy. Let’s say, for instance the “intelligence arm” and the “defence arm” with different visions on how to proceed or, may be less organically, the hard-core idealistic arm vs the realistic arm of bureaucracy. The one which manages to convince the President wouldn’t be running a coup. Just saying.
I was thinking along the same lines. The Clintons and the Cheneys maybe?
Many among us have been wondering who’s in charge. The present administration has made it clear that it’s anything but clear who’s making decisions. I get the feeling the “organizational chart” may not be aligned with the constitution. Is the Biden team any different in this way than previous admins? Probably not. Sussing out the power structure ain’t easy, although the recent string of endorsements is interesting.
Aurelien made a comment two or three months back, I wish I could find it now but can’t, to the effect that the USA politics and government is such a mess that any country that really sets themselves to the task can get the US policy changes they want by playing the influence game right. Washington is complex system with many surfaces through which to approach it (a bit like hacking by social engineering). I think to a frightening degree this explains why policy is so weird. So when trying to build abstract models of what’s been going on I think it pays to take one project at a time and describe the influence flows in each instead of trying to build models of the overall system (e.g. org charts) to explain the projects.
For example, Project Ukraine seems to be State’s brainchild, it failed to get full WH buy in from Obama or Trump (although neither stopped it) but Biden liked it and it looks to me like the Pentagon has been trying to keep from getting that mess all over it since well before the SMO.
I/P otoh is very different. Israel is a forward operating base in which the Pentagon is well integrated. But there’s also a great deal of influence on WH coming instead via Washington’s elected political side. And there’s lots of political inertia.
What about the attempts to get Taiwan and/or Philippines into proxy war with China? I assume that the primary strategic goal there is, as with Russia, to get client states to trade less with China (e.g. big EU trade sanctions once the shooting starts). So that’s likely again State in collaboration with outside Neocons influencing WH.
Thanks for the excellent reply and food for thought.
I think this is an important point. And even within, say, the military or the intelligence communities there are factions that disagree on policy or that are more ideological or more realist. In my view, since the fall of the Soviet Union the biggest problem in the US is that the neocons have been able to infiltrate key positions in the “bureaucracy” and both political parties and dominate our foreign policy apparatus. It’s like the old right-wing propaganda about the “commies” infiltrating our government and controlling our policies – but it’s actually *true*. It’s a “conspiracy theory” that is well documented, including by the neocons themselves. As many have pointed out, the neocons have been writing up their plans for world domination for years, they’ve gotten themselves appointed to positions of power, and they’ve carried out these plans.
There have been instances where the “realists” have been able to slow down the crazies. In the last years of the Bush administration the “seven countries in five years” project of Cheney/Rumsfeld was finally stopped by realists in the Pentagon and the CIA before we could do something really stupid in Iran. But then the neocons just picked things up again in the administration of Nobel “Peace” Prize winner Obama. We “took out” Libya and started in on Syria, but again some realists pushed back on the warmongers, kept Obama from bombing Syria over a false-flag gas attack, and were able to slow things down again. Then comes Trump who immediately pushes the neocon policies toward Israel and Iran. Yet when he proves his manhood by launching missiles toward Syria in response to yet another false-flag, there are reportedly realists in the military who made sure to minimize the damage. And so on.
The neocons are a cancer. They have been able to do incalculable damage, often with allies who have convergent interests – weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists, Israel and its lobbyists, right-wing Christian Zionists, etc. Let’s hope that the “realists,” if there are any left, are able to bring some sanity to our foreign adventures before it is too late.
Thank you, pjay. I fear, however, that pointing the finger at this ghastly coven of famous Neocons isn’t enough since the ideology of Western exceptionalism and supremacy is very popular. Many pronouncements of European top politicians have been as crazed and belligerent in recent years. More generally, conceited Cold War triumphalism just won’t go away and is often implicit what passes for normal discourse. “The Neocons,” as we think of them, and as you recount, represent people who had outsize and disastrous influence but their ideology isn’t unusual or radically out of step with popular sentiment.
Ok, you are right, but among these top European politicians that want to look belligerent (let’s say Starmer for instance), apart from posturing they behave pretty much as the proverbial poodle that will hide behind the big dog at first chance. It is mere posturing and keeping narratives not actual decisions.
Ignacio: I believe that you are on the mark.
The issue is that the military, in spite of the continuous failures of the U.S. military of the last seventy or so years, is still well trained and fully aware of the destruction that wars cause. The problem with “civilian control of the military” is that, in the past, most presidents and other U.S. dignitaries had some sense of the capabilities of the military and some misgivings about war. Since Madeleine Albright’s famous statement about “using” the great military, the US of A finds itself in the hands of such nutcases and mediocrities as Jake “All the Charm of an Undertaker” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton (Saint Hillary of Adoration of War, ora pro nobis), Pistol-Packing Kamala Harris (of the guns at home — sheesh), and Victoria “Venomous Cookies” Nuland. Not to mention Antony “Banality of Evil” Blinken.
Ergo: Not a coup. To put it at a basic level, if a plumber tells you that he can’t install a pipe that runs through your living room, you can have a tantrum, but in the end, the pipe will not swirl around your sofa.
Further, another problem is the merger of the “intelligence” “community” and the military with big business. This is exemplified by Gen. Laura Richardson, wandering around South America shopping for lithium, although ostensibly she should be only a military advisor. Coup? Or neoliberalism in action?
So the various branches of U.S. bureaucracy are engaging in self-preservation. Luckily, in this case, the U.S. officer corps knows just how addle-brained Biden and Harris are.
And as Yves Smith notes in the headnote: “coup” is not the parola giusta. What we are seeing instead is more like the late, decadent stages of the Chinese Empire, when Empress Ci Xi supposedly squandered the funding for the navy on the summer palace instead.
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55637/did-empress-cixi-divert-funds-for-the-beiyang-fleet-to-build-the-summer-palace
in the past, most presidents and other U.S. dignitaries had some sense of the capabilities of the military and some misgivings about war.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. did military service (curiously, all in the navy) and several saw serious action during WWI or WWII.
Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, Biden all kept clear of serious (or any whatsoever) involvement in the military.
Truman was a WW1 U.S. Army artilleryman. Supposedly a political operative who saw him in France described Truman as the only officer he’d met who the enlisted men didn’t seem to want to shoot, which led to the beginning of Truman’s political career.
My bad, Truman and Eisenhower were army, not navy (I actually prepended them to the list after writing the text).
Truman, as artillery, was behind the front lines in WW I. Eisenhower never saw combat in WW I. He was not on front lines in WW II. Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were in positions during WW II that were relatively safe. Ford did see action, and almost lost his life in the typhoon that struck Nimitz’s forces in 1944. Bush saw action in the Pacific as a naval flier, and Kennedy, he was a real war hero in the PT-109 saga.
Its been over 30 years since we had President with any real military experience in a combat zone.
The military doing it’s own thing happened with Trump also. I would not be surprised if it happens more often in the years to come.
I would certainly expect it if the politicians and political appointees keep wanting the military to do impossible things.
And don’t forget when Obama tried to reduce tensions in Syria, the military intervened. I think the empty armories may be making enough of an impression in the Pentagon that they have wrested power from the truly mad neocons at State. This is more a factional maneuver under the executive than a coup.
And….. when the US sends the CIA chief as a negotiator between Israel andHamas, it’s a bit telling and reveals who’s in charge.
The US military has been ‘doing its own thing’ since November 1963. Ditto the US intelligence agencies.
Back then they operated in unison. Today, if this article is correct, they are at loggerheads.
Too optimistic. Netanyahu is told if he invades Lebanon he is on his own, he does it anyway, then what? There’s no chance of the US abandoning him during an election. The exploding pager prank was practically a war start by itself. I’m amazed there is no massive retaliation yet.
It would seem reasonable to surmise that the ‘walk in the park’ which the Pentagon has taken Biden would be the same if it were Trump sitting as nominal head of the USA.*
In which case, the election is irrelevant to the reality of the facts on the ground that the outcome for the USA and all involved, as presented by the only remaining faction containing a smattering of adult professionals, of the US allowing itself to be dragged by the nose by Netanyahu into such a scenario is far worse than staying out of it.
The ‘Houti’s’ in Yemen just lobbed a hypersonic missile from a considerable distance into Israel over not only Israeli missile defence but also US navy vessels in the Red Sea. The remaining grown up’s in the Pentagon will know for a certainty that (a) Iran – recently supplied with state-of-the-art missile defence systems from Russia – will have such offensive weapons systems which are far superior to that of what Yemen can deliver;
and
(b) that the ‘Houti’s’ in Yemen do not have the capability and capacity to manufacture such ordinance themselves and will have been supplied with such missiles from at least other local Regional antagonists such as Iran and possibly even the Russians. That being the case, it is not inconceivable that Hezbollah may have some already tucked away in their arsenal.
This being the case, AIPAC can jump up and down and scream and scream until they are sick as far as the Pentagon are concerned. As that is far preferable to the implications arising from the likelihood of the sinking of US navy warships and the destruction of US bases in the region.
A situation just as real and relevant whoever occupies the nominal seat in the White House.
The argument that what the Pentagon has done amounts to a coup is somewhat redundant anyway. It has long been accepted – by implication at least – that such a coup occurred a long time ago simply by reference to the concept of the Deep State/MIC being the real source of power and decision making. All that has occurred is that one Deep State faction has just put its foot down and and taken over from another Deep State faction.
*The evidence already exists that orders/policies from Trump when he was President were ignored by sections of the Deep State who are really in charge.
The US already pulled out one of its two carriers in this area as they can’t stay on station forever. And if the US told Netanyahu that they aren’t interested in his idea of a Kursk-style incursion into southern Lebanon, then perhaps that explains why the Israelis set off those pagers and walky-talkies. The idea was to trigger a massive Hezbollah attack on Israel whereupon Netanyahu shouts to the US ‘Help us Uncle Sam. You’re our only hope.’ But Hezbollah isn’t taking the bait nor is Iran which must be driving Netanyahu nuts.
In the meantime, Yahoo having a surfeit of huge and devastating Empire-supplied munitions, southern Lebanon will soon resemble Gaza and increasingly the West Bank, miles of pre-construction demolition upon which the Israelites expect to build the condos and mansions and New Temple of that Yeretz Israel their self-published “history” lays claim to.
Along with all the fossil resources beneath and under adjacent waters.
Gaza is very densely populated, or was. Southern Lebanon is not. Please don’t make poorly founded comments.
“…Lebanon will soon resemble Gaza” – More like Lebanon will resemble South Vietnam. Remember another of our lost wars. I saw it from the air a few times. Millions of holes in the earth that resulted in nothing more than profits for the bomb makers.
There was an exhibit at the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo I saw last fall by Vandy Rattana called Bomb Ponds. A series of photos in Cambodia showing the “holes in the earth” years later as nature slowly reclaims them. Of course they are ponds as in full of water. An eerie reminder that the effects of war are always with us. In his words…
“He has to date photographed some three hundred of the roughly twenty thousand bomb craters said to exist around the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. At first seemingly part of the tranquil rural landscape, these craters, the artist says, “express the psychological trauma of the Cambodians who survived the bombings,” though they also embody how the past is hidden within daily life.”
Really?, you must have forgotten what happened the last time Israel invaded S Lebanon.
How does one say “shock and awe” in Hebrew? Looks like the Israelites have gone all Yeshua on southern Lebanon, and some Israeli guy on a TV interview, I believe he was a government person, said Lebanon and Hezbollah are congruent and both will be annihilated. The interviewer challenged him on the word choice, and he doubled down. The strongest possible term. Looking at the video of the IDF attacks, I’m reminded of some of what I saw from a distance in Vietnam. And what we all saw so well displayed by those US “embedded” TV guys in the hotel in Baghdad as “Operation Iraqi Liberation” got underway.
I wonder if Hezbollah really does have all the stuff they are said to have. We shall see.
They are not taking the bait mainly because of the influence of their friend in Moscow.
Which in turn must be driving the neo-cons nuts.
The bureaucracy telling politicians that what they would like to do can’t be done isn’t a coup, it is the normal relationship between politics and bureaucracy. The politicians can accept that, or they can replace the top persons in the bureaucracy. If generals refuse to step down you have a constitutional crisis, if they try to use their troops to replace the politicians you have a coup attempt.
That said, I think this interview and the relationship between the military and civilian arms of the US empire is very important. Following Wilkerson’s reasoning, the most important person in the EU/European Nato sphere isn’t Macron, Scholz, von der Leyen or Stoltenberg. It is general Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and leader of United States European Command (EUCOM). Never heard of him? Neither had I.
But surely you’ve heard of his senior thesis, “The Effect of Earthworms on the Vertical Distribution of Slime Molds in the Soil.” Wikipedia
One can only wonder what went wrong in his life to have caused him to stray so far from his such laudable earlier interests.
He hasn’t strayed too far, though, if he’s working toward an apocalyptic future where humanity is gone and earthworms rule the earth.
This gives me hope that the military has disabled Biden’s football and perhaps it really doesn’t matter who wins this pathetic excuse for an election. Best case scenario, maybe they have communicated this to Putin and to whoever is in charge of Hezbollah and Iranian military responses.
Best, best. best case scenario maybe they have only recently communicated this to Zelensky and Netanyahoo.
I think we are lucky to have Cavoli.
I’m quite relieved to think the military has red lines that in some cases match mine. I liked trump’s attempt to get out of afghan and was disappointed when it didn’t quite happen, but I would be quite pleased to not be in an escalating hot war with Russia or Iran. Perhaps Israel will be restrained, but imo they’re crazier than our warmongers.
Perhaps this is a check/balance that has always been there, but never needed because we’ve never had warmonger quite this crazy in charge. Macarthur was the reverse… he wanted more war in a far away place, not less, perhaps the saner bits in the military were relieved he was fired.
Perhaps the pivot to hot war with China is off the table.
Reminds me that my wife was on SHAPE staff when Al “I’m in control here” Haig was SACEUR.
Zelenski’s or whomever wants long range strikes in Russia are asking for terrror attacks, as Pepe Escobar recently observed: all the US has is terror.
The “long range missiles” are no more potent than V-1 rockets! They are neither big enough bang, accurate enough or numerous enough to do more than blow up some headlines.
Long term for what Austin said a few weeks ago, in Brussels
The Pentagon might be able to stand up to Biden. But are they really able to say no if the full influence of the Israeli state is brought to bear in Washington? If a war breaks out and House and Senate both erupt in chorus with the media for US deployment, and the President joins in, can we expect the Pentagon – as a political institution – to stand against the tide?
No. They will follow orders. And Netentahu writes the orders.
I think that senior officers who have reached eligibility for retirement with full pay cannot be compelled to obey orders that they don’t agree with. They don’t have to obey orders that they consider to be illegal. Regarding orders that they consider to be “merely” “very unwise,” I doubt very much that careerist US generals/admirals would be enthusiastic about capping their careers by going down in the history books as commanders in a catastrophically failed conflict.
There could be mass resignations of generals/admirals. Not a coup, but a massive and highly public declaration of “no confidence in the senior civilian leadership” on the part of the military. The President might find himself left with a military that lacks senior command competencies required to fulfill his orders. Again, not a coup, just an endogenously emergent lack of executive capacity. And the debacle would be the responsibility of … the Commander in Chief.
Military resisted trump’s efforts to get out of afghan with endless delay.
I’ve heard that already one of the armada’s carriers has been sent home. Not enough missiles/supplies/men/ fuel or whatever. Just cut ‘come home’ orders, and there’s not much Biden can do, he might not even know for a while. Plus I wonder how fond the military is of Israel, the brass must know what happened to the liberty. And how they’re trying to drag us into their genocidal war.
Last time was 1949 “revolt of the admirals”. Contrast with McMaster’s critique of the Joint Chiefs in “Dereliction of Duty”.
You did have the public firing of Shinseki for insisting that the army needed heavy artillery, and a large occupation army for Iraq.
I don’t really agree. This is about realpolitik and essential to that is the reality of careers. People in the WH and State are much more vulnerable to threats than military officers since their career can involve stints at various think-tanks, universities, and NGOs from the IMF/World Bank on down. Military people have different post-career paths and are less likely to be judged on ideological purity by both the Zionist and neocon elites.
Also, what if the military careerists have been more resilient to being “Epsteined”. Or maybe they want to see the sex tapes.
The “fat Leonard” bribed a number of navy officers with a variety of monetary and in-kind gifts, including services by Asian prostitutes.
With a trillion USD defence budget where accountants cannot even balance the books, the grift must be so out of control that there will be enough kompromat to keep those people wearing spiffy uniforms in check.
Reminded me of this
‘Fat Leonard’ Was a Crook U.S. Admirals Called Bro
In the Navy, you can do as you please.
There are always fairly deep internal divisions within the bureaucracy particularly in the National Security realm because that is where the action is for ambitious people who want power. Ideology holds sway, at this time, within the civilian sphere and particularly among political appointees. Military people are focused on missions and teamwork ideally, whereas places like the State Department are more focused on vague ideological goals and individual power plays. The consequences for today’s diplomats are mild–the consequences for the military in an ill-advised mission is death and destruction for a lot of people. I think past US military activities have traumatized senior officers as should be the case. Civilians, politicians, “journalists” who cheerlead for war never suffer any consequences.
Since Goldwater-Nichols the US military has been driven by the demands of “jointness” and the rise of the ComCons as the seat of power. Of course, DoD has its own massive bureaucracy of “Defense Agencies”
Is it just ‘following orders’ or is it more like planning and executing a large and complicated logistics operation with requirements that may be inherently impossible? Without full buy in, there are a million ways for the DOD to leave Bibi on his own logistically without disobeying any orders.
And even with full support, practical limits exists and are near.
@Yves, in your intro where are you are describing what President Putin said to Oliver Stone, which President Bush are you referring to please?
I think it must be Bush the Younger — Putin’s ascent came long after Bush the Elder had lost to Clinton.
A big thanks to Yves for posting this article by Neuburger and highlighting the Napolitano interview with Wilkerson.
Stone’s interviews with Putin came out a number of years ago and I saw them through NetFlix or something on cable TV. They are very valuable for those interested in our foreign policy. Looking them up on google I see they are mostly a product available through media companies, but Glen Diesen has the first part of four on YouTube available HERE. This is the weekend and watching them is a better investment than football. Your team is guaranteed a win.
here’s the 4 interviews in order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wvITVgzMKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSymwkbfuZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpzG_5Rd8cs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crlIG8QgyiQ
Seems it’s not military in isolation… it is also – very much- the suppliers to the military.
Follow the money. The Cynics guide to how the world works(tm)
Napolitano, in my tiny universe, sort of came out of nowhere about a year ago. Now he has guests from the A list of alternative media reality based types. I’ve tried to get my Team Red Israel supporting Dem hating family interested in him noting he is a former FOX contributor and seems to be a gold bug libertarian type Republican. But they do not appear to be doing so. Regarding the drone attack that destroyed Russian Missiles, I heard that came from the the direction of NATO Baltic nations but not sure how conclusive such info is. Would that constitute crossing Russian red lines?
Re J-Nap, I expect it’s a niche audience because many people won’t have enough or compatible information going into his interviews to make much sense of them. Keep trying anyway.
I didn’t hear that about the drone attack on the weapon store. Gilbert Doctorow and others reported without equivocation that it was a Ukrainian operation.
Armchair Warlord on xitter, who does not appear to be anybody important but who is right more often than not, thinks that the attack came from the Baltics, but that the Russians won’t respond right away because it would be a distraction.
In the long run the Baltics are toast due to their treatment of ethnic Russians. Russia has no interest in invading actual Europe, but the Baltics are a special category of their own, to be dealt with once it is clear that NATO is no longer a thing.
In my experience, single sources are not reliable. You’d expect Russian Telegram to be all abuzz and bleed into Twitter from that if there were anything approaching evidence.
The drones if jet propelled drones have the range to fly from Ukraine. No need to get Latvia involved. Recall there was an earlier Ukraine drone attack (single big drone or at most two) that got well into Russia, IIRC Engels air base.
Once again, The Coup occurred November 22, 1963.
I agree with that sentiment but now I wonder if this environment had a twelve year gestation period. It ran from 11 April 1951 when MacArthur was fired (with cries of ‘never again’ in the Pentagon?) to 22 November 1963 when the situation was reversed.
Yes, as The Globalist period grew out of its infancy, post war.
Agreed. Am reading David Talbot’s “Brother’s” including Curtis LeMay’s insubordination along with an unnamed Sec. Nav who was allowed to retire w/o acknowledging his pushing for what would amount to a military coup because he didn’t think JFK & RFK were doing enough to fight the Commies. These incidents were a prelude to the election in Dallas.
There was an earlier coup in July 1944 when the DNC stuck it to Henry Wallace and replaced him with Harry Truman.
I have to disagree. As far as I am concerned, the coup happened in 1787. That is when we went from something resembling a democracy, to an unaccountable “republic” that is under the control of whatever oligarchs reside within our borders at any given time. The people were given no say in this transition, and the negotiations occurred among elites who kept all details secret from the public. This is the event in US history that has all the hallmarks of an actual coup, and most of us are dumb enough to believe that it was a good thing. Elites have been propagandizing us for a very, very long time.
As John Jay said at the time:
It could have been worse, imagine if the Anti-Federalists hadn’t brought up the ten amendments.
The potential orders are absolutely nuts. The officers may serve at the pleasure of the president, but their oath is to the constitution first.
Telling the president the consequences of such an order is well within the oath. Biden needs more directness because he is particularly stupid.
The problem is the diplomatic side is dominated by people playing Risk, knowing full well they won’t face consequences.
Right. Of course the downside of creating this vast military so the officer class can have lots of perks and on base golf courses is that the civilian side says, in the words of that ghoul Madeleine Albright, “why do we have this huge military if we aren’t going to use it?”
Carolinian: the downside is that the civilian side says, in the words of that ghoul Madeleine Albright, “why do we have this huge military if we aren’t going to use it?” :
It’s a bigger problem than that, in that Western policymakers are so cretinously arrogant and stupid that they can’t and won’t get their minds around:
[1] The real-world specifics of US weapon systems, and their advantages and — yes! — disadvantages compared with, forex, equivalent Russian and Chinese kit; a mindless Hollywood-type mythology of US military tech superiority as la TOP GUN seemingly prevails.
[2] The logistical limitations of neoliberal states trying to fight real, protracted wars e.g. they can’t, as the ROW has figured out.
[2] The limitations of military force generally as a means of compelling the behavior of others.
NotTimothyGeithner: The problem is the diplomatic side is dominated by people playing Risk, knowing full well they won’t face consequences.
They’re wrong and those people only think that because they’re fools. Thanks to the Biden administration’s blunders since 2020, the decline of US hegemony has been accelerated to a point in 2024-25 that we probably wouldn’t have arrived at for another 10-15 years otherwise.
Just to begin with, solidly uniting Russia, China, and Iran against the US while simultaneously kneecapping US allies in Europe is a strategic blunder for the ages, which historians are going to have fun with centuries. (That’s if there are historians, of course.)
I took the US’ officer’s oath in 1972. I doubt it was changed.
The oath is to the constitution and to execute duties to same in offices to which assigned.
Unlike the enlisted oath which adds duties to obey lawful orders.
The courage to support and defend is what is expected, rarely seen.
That said former official of Ukraine is demanding US weapons and direct personal actions to effect effete terror acts deep in Russia.
Warning this off is duty.
There seems to have been a hawk/dove switch of sorts in the 60 years since the Cuban missile crisis. Then, still flushed with WW2 victory high, generals like LeMay were all in on attacking Cuba, which we now know would have led to total nuclear annihilation. Most of the civilians at least had reservations, and JFK’s grew as time went on–helped, no doubt by Adlai Stevenson insistence that a diplomatic solution was needed. Today, it seems no president can stand up to the Neo-con insistence on continued hegemony, thinking they can “make their own reality”. While at least some in the military have a more realistic view of the limits of US power, and are now the ones stepping on the brakes. But as Mercouris is fond of saying, the Neo-cons have no reverse gear. JFK’s assassination then can be seen as a warning to all future presidents to get with the program of permanent conflict, subversion, and coups or face the consequences. So, barring a reversal of the missile decision, it will be on to the next show, China and the Pacific.
The situation back then was a bit different since on the mutual destruction front America was ahead and Russia was behind. Even before Cuba LeMay and some others wanted to obliterate Russia so we wouldn’t have to worry about their nukes.
Now the Russians don’t need missiles in Cuba because they have missile subs and other means that state quite clearly that an attack on them will be the end of us. To the hegemonic mind this means we must take over Russia by some other means and doubtless Biden and his crew of incompetents thought that sanctions would bring them to their knees. The real solution–peace and mutual cooperation–seems to be something the petty power mongers will never be able to accept.
Yes, and Russo-phobia inherited from the Brits has long been part of US foreign policy. Allen Dulles was just one of many in the elite who cozied up to the Nazis, and who really thought we fought the wrong enemy in WW2. And there were those like LeMay who wanted to go on to Moscow after WW2 ended. Nothing much has changed. Taking the long view, the present confrontation with Russia has more than a whiff of inevitability. Detente was an accidental hiccup in the conflict because nobody foresaw that Gorbachev would put an end to the 1st Cold War, just as Kennedy had tried to do 3 decades before.
My optimistic thought is that if the military has said no for hot war with Russia and Iran, they certainly won’t want war with China. Imo the war games have shown they’re all a disaster… who wants to lose a carrier or two, each with 3500 sailors.
Try thinking about it this way: JFK was the last president that wasn’t a neocon himself. All since have been at best soft neocon, some not as risk seeking as the most notorious neocons but sharing their core ideology of supremacy that justifies any action.
The Constitution says that the president is the commander in chief but only Congress has the power to declare war. It’s true that in past decades the Congress has often ceded to the executive the power to use the military against certain countries and groups without a declaration of war. And they certainly seem to be supporting the arming of the Ukrainians and the use of economic sanctions against the Russians. But Putin just recently has said that he will interpret direct attacks on Russian territory by NATO forces as a declaration of war and act accordingly. This Congress has not voted on this, and the notion that they don’t need to shows how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen. Biden was proposing to roll the dice on nuclear war without public approval. The man is senile and shouldn’t even be sitting in that chair so the coup is perhaps that, thanks to the ever scheming Dems, he is even still around.
Thanks for the above report and the terrifying implications that go with it. When Kubrick made his movie back in the 60s the insanity factor governing the use of our now vast power was treated as a joke. The MIC has played a big role in now making it all too real but at least realize that, should real war come, the game will also be up for them.
Great article because it points to something most people who are unfamiliar with foreign policy don’t seem to grasp, i.e., there are rivalries and major conflicts between organizations within government. The job of the POTUS is to balance the needs and agendas of separate organizations as well as various power groups like the Israeli lobby which dominates Congress but is deeply distrusted (or was) among professionals in foreign policy for obvious reasons. Also, in the Pentagon, ideology has less hold on military officers than their civilian counterparts at State, the WH and spookdom. Biden obviously knows that bullying the military is way too hard.
I wonder if the military said “No” or just said “Massive humiliation and destruction of our allies and US troops supporting them right before the election will be the outcome”. Or maybe that’s just No spelled with more than two letters.
December may be a dangerous month, however.
Perhaps the Constitution assumes that presidents are rational and generals are war-mongers, not the other way around.
How strange it must be for the “enemies.” If you’re Russia or China or Iran, who do you deal with?
Who must you deal with? If a treaty, and certainly a less formal agreement, is only functional until some general or State Department apparatchik says it isn’t, that kind of puts a fork in the whole notion of diplomacy. It devolves into a situation comparable to dealing with a madman who is brandishing a cigarette lighter, a fuse and a case of dynamite. When the dynamite is a mind-staggeringly dimensioned cache of nuclear weapons, then you gotta be very very careful and very very smart. But how smart and careful can you be when you don’t even know who is the madman-in-chief-de-jour?
If the military are putting their foot down, then good luck to them I say. The warmongering is getting off the charts and one of the biggest villains here is the US State Department which is suppose to be about diplomacy. Perhaps the “right people” were put in place when Hillary ran the State Department from 2009 to 2013 but for sure they are more militaristic than the military. The Ambassadors that they send to other countries act more like Viceroys rather than Ambassador and here I am thinking of the US Ambassador to Mexico but you get the same in other countries where those Ambassadors give orders to their host government and openly support opposition parties. That is not suppose to be what Ambassadors do. A General told a member of the State Department about a decade ago that when the guys at State don’t do their jobs, then those generals need more bullets. Maybe those generals were getting tired of cleaning up some of the messes that these warmongers have been creating. So good luck to them I say.
We can’t fight a Cold War and climate change at the same time.
To me this is not so much a coup as a natural effect of having no coherent policy regarding the players in either combat area.
For example with regards to Russia two of the top level ideas are “We must weaken Russia” and “Putin must be ousted”. But if you ask any concrete policies to achieve either of those goals you basically get back “We must weaken Russia” and “Putin must be ousted”. The only developed policy that was meant to achieve those goals having failed horribly and there being nothing there to replace it other then try what didn’t work but harder.
The thing is that the military needs something to plan against. So this apparent inversion of the command structure where the military ends up crafting policy that would give them the best possible point from which to do what they have been ordered to do.
I agree with fjallstrom’s remark. It is the Secretary of Defense’s job to advise the President (as well as the job of every Cabinet member). The President can refuse to take the advice, but usually defers to their expertise. Lincoln let his generals run the war, and replaced them when they didn’t perform, but didn’t tell them where or hw to fight. Same with FDR (he wanted to start with invading Europe). What they didn’t have was their Secretary of State running wars, as Biden has allowed Blinken. What is unconstitutional is Congress not voting on our wars and using the AUMF (authorization of use of military force) that was passed after 9/11 as carte blanche for any military action anywhere.
Lincoln most certainly did not “let his generals run the war”. Early on there was a symbiotic relationship between aspiring officers and politicians. That led to competing clashes as political territory/influence was staked out. Lincoln for his part kept personal control over appointment of volunteer generals, ensuring a degree of control. Lincoln and Stanton tried to directly run operational war in western Virginia with horrible consequences. Then the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was created so congress could have power over the flags.
Lincoln/congress imposed corps commanders on McClellan, so they would have independent control over the primary field army.
That’s before trying to work all the political machinations of army high command in the west with Halleck.
Meanwhile in the Navy you had Fox setting up an independent organization to procure ironclads/monitors outside the control of the Chief Engineer and Chief Constructor with substantial aid going to the MIC.
Lincoln only “let his generals run the war” after his “telling them where or how to fight” proved such a disaster in 1862. General McClellan had arrived at the gates of Richmond in June 1862 by approaching that city from Fortress Monroe rather than Washington DC. He ordered General McDowell to bring his corps down from Fredericksburg, where it was covering the approaches to Washington, to protect his right flank, and placed General Porter’s corps across the Chickahominy River to connect with McDowell.
Lincoln countermanded McClellan’s order, leaving Porter isolated from the rest of the Union army. General Lee brought General Jackson’s “Army of the Valley” to Richmond. (Jackson was available because Lincoln had directly commanded the Union forces facing Jackson in the famous “Valley Campaign” – and those forces had been humiliated by losing battle after battle to a much smaller Confederate force.)
Lee defeated Porter’s corps, turned McClellan’s flank, and forced the Union Army to retreat to the James River. Several weeks later the table had completely turned, and it was the Confederate Army standing before the gates of Washington.
Nashville and New Orleans had been captured by the Union earlier in 1862. Had Richmond also been taken, the Confederacy almost certainly would have collapsed soon after the loss of its 3 largest cities – and the horror and bloodshed that ensued would have been averted. (Lee himself at the time had opined that if the Union Army was able to besiege Richmond, then the city’s fall was “only a matter of time”.)
To his credit, Lincoln learned from his mistakes, and eventually did turn the actual conduct of the war over to his generals. It’s painful to contemplate the course of American history had he refrained from directly interfering with the military conduct of the war at its outset….
The downside to the war ending in 1862 is that the continuation of slavery would probably have been part of the peace deal. Who knows what that would have led to longer-term. We might have traded Anteitam, Gettysburg, and Cold Harbor for a second civil war fought with machine guns.
This is overblown. When senior officers give advice that is sound, it is hard for politicians to ignore it. Those who do usually meet a sticky end (politically). EG Liz Truss.
It very hard to know what or who to believe and as was pointed out, time will possibly tell us the truth.
I would add that the discussion has only been about missiles.
But drones on the other hand, no one has mentioned them being part of the red line which are supposedly hit the russian weapons depot.
I don’t believe that Ukraine is capable of building such drones that are hitting Russia and is getting them from somewhere?
But either way if you subtract the yes/no to launching attacks on Russian soil, the war is continuing with no end in sight. Commentators are still saying that Russia needs and can be defeated by Ukraine. There is basically no one in MSM or the US government that is talking anything other than more war and weapons for Ukraine. Farrid Zaharia’s interview with Z just another example.
Z is meeting the UN and will talk to Biden/harris next week. And I don’t think they will tell him the game is over.
Harris is running campaign adds that are to me super scary about Russia and war, and the continuing lie about Russia’s next stop is Paris and she’s the one that can stop it.
I’ve voted dem my whole life. Not this time. Let the chips fall.
In addition to trying to figure out who is making the decisions in the exec. branch. Another problem is that when US POTUS says something, or makes promises to a foreign leader, it is often just BS. Politicians are professional liars, after all. Any major intl. agreement that a President makes, must be ratified by the Senate. The pres can always play the “good cop, bad cop” game and say he tried, but the Senate shot him down. Or making BS promises can be a way of stalling, or just a way to BS the foreign leaders.
I don’t think we should read anything into Biden seething, for all we know he could have had an upset tummy. But what Wilkerson says about the Japanese PM re: empty briefcases is, I think, significant.
I think the role of the POTUS is similar to that of the CEO of a major corporation, in that everyone you speak to is lying, seeking power or advantage, and you must somehow discern or approximate truth through alternative channels than directly. Therefore, some politicians will have something in their briefcases, others won’t, depending on whether they know how.
Neither Biden nor Harris come from a world or upbringing where they’re able to, they aren’t guarding against the Wormtongues. Especially if they still believe the US has the world’s most powerful military, that Russia is a big bad bogeyman and all Arabs even their children are terrorists and Israelis have claim to Palestine, then they’ve swallowed some pretty big ones. Who can work with them, they have only hallucinations, visions, no way of getting to truth?
And they’re also furthest from understanding how their particular organizatons operate. This is essentially an empty briefcase.
And are building a massive foundation of their limited understanding, and when that collapses it’s not a coup, just a hot mess of their own making.
Trump, on the other hand, insofar as he seems to have contempt for White House advisors (especially military, Natonal Security Advisors and the intelligence community), appears to have developed an understanding he’s being lied to. Seems to build momentums and form alliances outside of official channels. His team actively looks for talent specifically to get around the obstacles of officialdom, party ideology. The story of how RFK Jr joined Team Trump is relevant here. So Trump’s briefcase is a little heavier than Biden/Harris, in that briefcase is a working network, political capital.
When Putin approached Bush (somehow I always thought it was Clinton) with a proposal for Russia to join NATO, this was a moment of truth, was he dealing with a president with an empty briefcase or a visionary who could make it happen despite the deadweight and opposition within his organization. We know the answer to that.
If you have an organizational division which, for whatever reason, cannot or will not move in the direction needed, the only way you’re getting things done is partnerships, alliances, people and teams. Reality for Biden and Harris (and soon, Netanyahu) is going to stump them, whereas for Trump, he’ll be selecting for and building teams closer to the truth as he’s able to discern it within the basic premise everyone is lying. I don’t see him as a visionary but he’ll be feeding off alternatives to officialdom anywhere and everywhere in a way more likely to get to a place where, if it was him instead, he’d have a better chance of getting Russia into the EU and/or NATO.
Where I’m going with this is I agree it’s not so much a coup as just organizational dynamics.
While the Biden administration has been characterized by a group of weak sycophantic children kissing-up to a grossly incompetent bully who micro-manages their every decision, the Trump administration seemed to be characterized by a group of lying empire-builders seeking their to enhance own personal power and advantage by kissing-up to a small-minded narcissist who let them run wild.
Both types of “leadership” have been bad for America’s international standing, even if admittedly Biden’s results are demonstrably worse than Trump’s. As for Harris, we just don’t know…
There is no evidence the DT will change policy toward Israel. As if we can believe serially-mendacious politicians. During his first term there was a huge disconnect between the BS and actual policy. The warmongering D/R Bipartisan Consensus: Rs focus on China, Ds focus on Russia, while both bend over for the AIPAC/MICIMATT bribe-masters.
It is remarkable that both “sides” of the duopoly, make pathetic excuses for their candidate, the D and R faithful engage in wishful thinking and still believe in the fairy-tale of meaningful choice.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-debate-harris-backs-israels-right-to-self-defense-trump-says-she-hates-israel/
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/israel-to-name-new-town-on-golan-after-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN1RZ1QP/
It’s cult behavior. Except here they want us all to drink the Kool-Aid.
Biden and Harris are the wormtongues, but they have been accidentally elevated to the first chair.
The discussion I mentioned of Putin getting some sort of handshake deal with Bush was not about NATO. It was in the Stone interview.
The way I have heard the Putin ask of Clinton was that even though Putin was serious, he asked Clinton informally and in a light-seeming way. I think Putin did that so Clinton could treat it as a joke if he wanted to. Clinton apparently responded as if Putin might not be serious but then acted as if it might not be a bad idea at all. He ran it by his bureaucrats and then as I recall sent a written rejection.
As only a few here acknowledge, the only constitutional “coup” has been the usurpation by the executive branch of the war-making power vested in congress under Article I Section 8 . The military leadership pointing out that the executive branch is trying to write checks that can’t be cashed is their duty.
I have been closely following Kremlin translations of President Putin’s warnings about missile attacks. The Russian leadership has made it crystal clear that “Ukraine” is incapable of launching missile strikes deep into Russia without targeting guidance from GPS satellites directly operated by U.S. and NATO personnel. This will be deemed an act of war by the U.S. and NATO.
It has been reported that the Russian Federation has tested a system capable of detonating an orbital nuke capable of seriously degrading the GPS satellite network. It was also reported earlier this year that the PLA Navy demonstrated in the South China Sea their ability to completely jam the GPS-dependent navigational and weapons systems of a U.S. vessel while using their newly sophisticated non-satellite inertial navigation systems to lock their own weapons on target. China and Russia don’t need GPS. The U.S. does — for both military and civilian purposes.
This year China and Russia got the U.S. to veto a UNSC resolution banning weapons in space, so Russia is free to detonate a nuke in space without it being a direct attack on the U.S. under international law. I’m grateful that some adult told Biden and Starmer “no” to their blustering — the Russian leadership has been explicitly telling them, “F*ck around and find out.”
And here I thought the USN had been installing WSN-7 inertial nav using ring laser gyros as a replacement for the WSN-5 with older tech.
BTW, you do realize none of the Tomahawks used in Desert Storm had GPS, right?
It wasn’t reported exactly what was jammed by the PLA Navy, just that there was apparently a big panic. EA-18G Growler aircraft were involved and the commander of VAQ-136 assigned to the USS Carl Vinson (and my neighbors over on Whidbey Island) apparently was relieved of duty in the aftermath. South China Morning Post reporting although there’s admittedly a whiff of PLA propaganda in there.
While many aircraft will be grounded, many ships forced into dead-recokning, and many short-range weapons rendered useless if the GPS satellites are taken-out, inertial nav means that the retaliatory first-strike missile attack on Russia should go off without a hitch!
Winter is coming…
Not sure I’d call it usurpation if Congress is clearly on board with it – just look at how it votes on military spending bills.
IMO, calling this a “coup” is just click-bait.
The real coup has been the slow infestation of US Foreign Policy institutions by NeoCons, and I’m damn glad to see that they haven’t succeeded at the Pentagon as they have at State and Treasury (and almost all the NGOs that focus on FP).
I suspect that they failed to infiltrate the Pentagon because it’s a more insular bureaucracy; slots are filled *only* from the pool of military careerists, so they can’t just parachute in NeoCon loyalists from the Think Tanks where they are groomed.
The other (sorta) good thing about this is that it implies a serious split between two powerful Deep State Blocs: the NeoCons and the MIC. NeoCons have generally had good relations with the traditional MIC (promoting constant wars brings in the Money), but the MIC must have recognized that the current batch of NeoCon wars could kill the goose (USA) which lays their golden eggs.
I’m nearly all the way through the Judge Nap vid, after revealing that (23:18) until not so long ago the US had maintained war plans to fight the Brits, as was the case for anyone of consequence (the inference being that they are no longer of consequence), the Colonel says we knew the Brits were diabolical, they taught us all we know.
That’s what I have said to my Brit friends and former colleagues for years. If I hear any whiff of criticism of the US from UK folk, I point out the hypocrisy and say “where do you think we get it from?” The UK is the US partner in crime, separated by a common language. The only difference is the NHS and country pubs
Country pubs exist in the US, but they don’t cater to the gentry.
Dysfunctional working relationships seems to be a thing. Not sure if it’s part of neoliberalism or a highly polarized political landscape or a society increasingly split into the PMC and everybody else, but I and others have been on the receiving end of it where I work. So this is NOT a US government thing, this is something even deeper in America society.
It pretty much boils down to our elites know what they want to hear, and reality be damned.
Col. Wilkerson on the CIA in the Levant in 1946-47: “the real enemy is the British”. Anyone in London who still has any illusions about the reality of the so-called ‘special relationship’ needs to read Christopher Thorne’s classic ‘Allies of a Kind’ (1978). Wherever the Anglo-American relationship was remotely competitive, and was not that of a patron and a very subordinate client, it was acrid to a degree, as in the wartime Far East (on Thorne: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1387/94p753.pdf), but it was also true of the abject failure of Anglo-American co-operation in that theatre during the interwar period: https://archive.org/details/britishstrategyi0000loui/page/n5/mode/2up.
> I have to change my evaluation of Secretary Austin if that’s the case
#MoiAussi
Hard to believe that the
a little nuclear war might be a good thingsaner heads prevailed …… for now.
The military intervention and Biden/admin “reversal” is all for show.
The show’s purpose was to deflect the Russian warnings and to publicly distance the US from direct attacks on Russia.
The US is busy, it has it’s hand’s full with elections and the Middle East and clearly wants the EU to carry the can both financially and logistically for the ongoing Ukraine crusade. But the US, along with the UK is absolutely resolute in pursuing Russia by every means, I won’t iterate the endless reasons they must for their own economic, financial and hegemonic survival, they cannot possibly allow a BRICS to happen. How can they let China and Russia stay united and go on to fight China?
So, just as the anthrax in Colin Powell’s little vial was a stage prop for the UN to gawp at so was Starmer’s briefcase of maps of targets.
The whole point of Putin’s speech was that long range missile targets need US ISR, they depend on up to date intelligence or they move or emerge as sudden opportunities, they’re not something to be decided by “Biden” playing with a bunch of maps on a table at a televised public meeting!
It was a show, the stage magician waved his empty hands to the audience so the world could see there was nothing up his sleeves.
And as for Biden’s anger, if saner heads at the Pentagon had really pulled the rug they would absolutely have avoided the anger and embarrassment of a public display. Not to do so would be to risk being immediately put down for the absolute lack of protocol in precipitously slapping a president in public and their message would be drowned in acrimony.
The reality is Ukraine has the weapons and they are using them. The weapons depots it hit the other day were deep inside Russia and obviously US supplied. Ukraine likely sees it as why shouldn’t they? At this point Hail Mary’s is all it has left to call.
Gore Vidal has written more than once that the United States ceased to exist as a constitutional democracy with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, which effectively voided the requirement that only Congress can declare war. Instead, this decision was passed to the national security counsel. In the ensuing years, given that an attack by missiles could allow as little as 15 minutes to decide on the scale and scope of a response, the decision to make war came to reside solely with the President, with guidance from the National Security staff. Thus we have lived these past 75 years as a national security state.
The admirals and generals all know (we hope) that in the event of all-out nuclear war, there would be no one left to note who won or lost, as it would be an extinction-level event for most life on Earth. With that understanding, I feel more comfortable sleeping at night knowing that there is a check on a rogue President.
I believe those jet drones you refer to employ a P400 engine made by JetCat of Germany costing $11,600
What can I conclude after reading (or trying to read) over 100 comments. Maybe Yves should produce a summary.