A covert coup? The U.S. Is at war with itself.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

I read the London Book Review article at the link. Fascinating! A bunch of my intuitions were validated.

I'm sorry General Dempsey retired and I'm sorry Obama has a more compliant Pentagon since, according to Hersh. I hope that changes. It was very interesting to read that Russia's and the U.S.'s military have been working together since after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Lol! As far the President goes, I would be more than happy to get behind him when he starts doing the right things because the hidden ones who advise and control him want to start doing the right things.

So far, I still agree with the "Assad must stay strategy" until IS is properly defeated and legitimate elections can be held in Syria. I haven't come across anything which changes my mind. It was very interesting to note Hersh's statement that Obama, in private, accepts the reasons why Assad must stay but publicly and adamantly states the opposite.

I love this excerpt from the article about the U.S. and Russia working together constructively:

Few in the US Congress share this view. One exception is Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and member of the House Armed Services Committee who, as a major in the Army National Guard, served two tours in the Middle East. In an interview on CNN in October she said: ‘The US and the CIA should stop this illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and should stay focused on fighting against … the Islamic extremist groups.’

Dare I comment about Hersh's discussion of Erdogan? Nah... I'll leave it for now.

The above comments are the two cents from one who cares deeply about the direction this world goes - destruction or cooperation.

originally posted by: anonentity
America seems to love far right wing dictators in their friendly nations list .

Because, with apologies to Robert Frost, good dictators make good business partners.

I am reminded of United Fruit as a famous example....

Throughout all of this, United Fruit defined the modern multinational corporation at its most effective — and, as it turned out, its most pernicious. At home, it cultivated clubby ties with those in power and helped pioneer the modern arts of public relations and marketing. (After a midcentury makeover by the “father of public relations,” Edward Bernays, the company started pushing a cartoon character named Señorita Chiquita Banana.) Abroad, it coddled dictators while using a mix of paternalism and violence to control its workers. “As for repressive regimes, they were United Fruit’s best friends, with coups d’état among its specialties,” Chapman writes. “United Fruit had possibly launched more exercises in ‘regime change’ on the banana’s behalf than had even been carried out in the name of oil.”

source

And then there's Communist China.... although authoritarian on the opposite side of the political spectrum

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

Their private militias which worship the ground they walk on also pose a minor obstacle...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you saying, Obama fired his supporters in the military, so the group that opposes him could gain power?

If Obama did purge some of the top leaders because the opposed him, what were they DOING??? I mean, if the ones that Aremt against him is doing the above

It could all be to keep the world in an ongoing war.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
The military stops errant ideas all the time ,I have no links off hand but I am aware the last 3 presidents wanted Iran and the military said no.

Only because it would have been a step to far , where Russia was concerned. Russia only seems to put its foot down, when they feel they must, and then after great deliberation. At least with Russia you know the score. Putin knows that a people eating war will inevitably end with Nukes one way or another. So nobody wants to go there as its bad for business.

My interpretation of this situation would be that the actual people fighting the war are getting sick of following orders because they are being told to arm people which they find themselves fighting later down the road. It's easy to see why many people in the U.S. military wouldn't want to support "moderate" rebels take down the Syrian government, and I hope they keep it up.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Acts like this are what make me believe a civil war, or massive government restructuring on the order of a military coup is about to take place. How many Colonels and Generals has Obama retired so far? It's been a lot. In the past few years we learned the Pentagon was conducting their own secret foreign policy behind Clintons back... this is highly illegal. Then we learned states and Congress were doing the same thing which is again highly illegal. Now we see the Pentagon is also doing it to the President.

This is really scary stuff to have going on.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Should begin to get interesting exponentially starting 2016 and on into 2025

Assad and his family dynasty should have been put away long ago. But removing him just now would create a power vacuum ISSIS would fill. Hersh is a liberal radical who supports Obama and no one else. Look up Hersh and read his articles over the past years. Nothing more than an anti-American military ass. He supposedly broke the My Lai and Abu Ghraib scandals. Says "...US special forces is controlled by secret members of Opus Dei..." and "...Joint Chiefs of Staff Dominated by Knights of Malta, Opus Dei...". Anything Hersh says is anti-American at the very least!

INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY OCTOBER 29, 2013. (OBAMA FIRES 197 SENIOR MILITARY COMMANDERS IN FIVE YEARS (37 Four Star Generals). OBAMA FIRES 9 COMMANDING GENERALS IN 2013...
Since Obama took office an unprecedented number of top military leaders have been removed from their posts – nearly 200 generals, flag officers and other high-ranking officials. They are being “removed” at a rate of about one per week.
Just GOOGLE the question, make up your own mind...is Obama trying to destroy this country or what!

I have long said the alphabet agencies are out of control and acting out a foreign policy vastly different than the publically stated goals. That the DOD should now be doing the same should come as no surprise, after all aren't they just another alphabet agency?

With each successive administration since JFK, the president has become increasingly more of a figurehead. This latest president serves as a golden example. When it comes to foreign policy he is absolutely clueless. He's so far out of his league it's laughable (if it weren't so serious a matter). Unlike previous presidents however, Obama has openly deferred his foreign policy obligations to others. He simply doesn't care, and likely doesn't have the capacity to even understand. The power elite in control have seized upon this weakness to conduct foreign policy according to their own belief structure. The concept in and of itself is nothing new, but the scale to which it is presently happening is unprecedented.

Yes, Obama has dismissed many a military leader during his 'rule', but much of this has been based on trivial indescressions and minor disagreements which reflect poorly on him personally. These have not been the result of significant 'policy' deviations or strategic differences. Obama doesn't have a policy direction, he has no strategy; he's just wearing the fireman's hat and playing president. This vacuum of leadership is ripe for conflicting agendas across the various agencies.

All that said, I don't view this as some covert and organized plan to restructure the government, or some military coup. Rather, I see it as 'mice' playing while the 'cat' is off playing golf, or hob-knobbing with rappers, vacationing, or some other self-serving activity. Obama doesn't care about this country, he only cares about Obama...and he's made this painfully obvious over the past 7 years. Don't get me wrong, Obama is not unique in this pursuit, though he has perfected it into a science. No, Bush was almost as bad, but he was different. He was power hungry...and he was dangerous. Obama's not dangerous at all, but his not being dangerous makes him dangerous (in a different way).

Each step back through administrations reveals a similar trend, each with progressively more traction. Clinton sort of 'got it' when it came to foreign policy, but he was too paralyzed by his own personal transgressions to act. Bush Sr. totally got it, but he was from the CIA. He knew the inside game, the "back channel" world, but he too was mostly paralyzed just because of this. He couldn't openly take action on what were covert programs when he was at the CIA because they were all classified. Reagan got it and he was decisive about it bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. Carter (as much as I detest him) also totally got it when it came to foreign policy. Carter's problem though was he was a closet pacifist and incapable of being decisive. Ford was pretty much irrelevant, but Nixon got it. Here again though we have another republican drunk on power. If Nixon gets credit for one thing it was not allowing Kissinger to start WWIII (and he would have, left to his own devices). Johnson is kind of an odd duck in this theme. Johnson didn't really 'get it' as much as he was seen as an extension of JFK who got it. Most of the presidents prior to JFK had a profoundly better handle on the world and foreign policy.

So, you see, each successive administration since JFK has had an ever loosening grip on control. Covert coup? No, I don't believe this will be the case, but a trend towards anarchy through lack of leadership is a real possibility. That is, unless we can put a real "manager" and leader back in office.

Lastly, who could have ever dreamt the United States of America would put a "community organizer" (which translates into do-nothing) with absolutely ZERO leadership experience into the office of President (not once...but TWICE)???

More fun to come if we don't pull our collective heads out of our backsides!!

My .02

a reply to: anonentity

Hold on .
Every person who served in the cold war KNOWS Russia wanted those ports in Kerch and Sevastopol.
The world has clearly indicated they would acquiesce them but NOT greater Ukraine.
He moved in the first place,because of Obama's weak leadership.
Look at China,they have certainly gotten big for their britches lately.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
The military stops errant ideas all the time ,I have no links off hand but I am aware the last 3 presidents wanted Iran and the military said no.

Sorry if this is off topic, but......

I don't understand how, within the "government", there can be so many variables to war policy.

Isn't it policy that the president has Executive Order? I was under the impression that he didn't need Congress to have the final decision on war or could veto what he chooses? Also, that he has the final say-so on the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding war.

Am I naive to think this is as cut and dry as I assumed?

a reply to: itsallmaya

In a word; yes, unfortunately.

"Declaration of War" is a formal declaration the articles of which are passed by Congress and signed by the president.

However, the authorization for the use of military force does not require a declaration of war and can be done by Congress or by Executive Order. Then there's the whole clandestine proxy war thing which is conducted largely by the alphabet agencies (namely the CIA). And lastly, there's this concept known as "Plausible Deniability" which is a cover for the president and others, but allows some of these agencies to conduct operations without the specific knowledge and/or consent of the president.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't quite understand how the cia and other covert operatives worked and had so much power in this day and age. Fasinating and horrifying at the same time.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
The term terrorism was constructed to exploit a loophole in law
war cannot be declared against non-state entity's
The war on terror is an oxymoron, it is false by its very definition.

a reply to: itsallmaya

I don't understand how, within the "government", there can be so many variables to war policy.

It is because there are so many variables in the real world. Achieving a given strategic goal may require a variety of different tactics, some of which potentially undermine other strategic goals. The United States is trying try maintain Turkey and the Gulf States as allies, while combating terrorist groups that are actually furthering those nations' own strategic goals.

Hersch does a disservice to the situation by portraying the contradictions in policy to some sort of internal power struggle, or even coup. They are not; they arise from balancing different military and diplomatic goals.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: itsallmaya

Hersch does a disservice to the situation by portraying the contradictions in policy to some sort of internal power struggle, or even coup. They are not; they arise from balancing different military and diplomatic goals.

Wow, you don't think there is an internal power struggle going on in the context you mentioned above. Wow.

Oh, I do, and I think it vastly mushroomed from a lower level of noise in the system the day Obama took office and hasn't receded since.

a reply to: tweetie

Wow, you don't think there is an internal power struggle going on in the context you mentioned above. Wow.

Please explain what you mean by "power struggle," given that the Commander in Chief will certainly be different in one year's time.

originally posted by: DJW001
Hersch does a disservice to the situation by portraying the contradictions in policy to some sort of internal power struggle, or even coup. They are not; they arise from balancing different military and diplomatic goals.

Well put. Agree.